ArticleCureus2023
Application of a Navigated Drill for Cervical Pedicle Screw Insertion at C3-6.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Perforation of the cervical pedicle screw, especially lateral perforation, may lead to critical complications, such as vertebral artery injury. Sub-axial cervical spines (C3-6) are at risk of complications because these levels have limited area and angle. This study aimed to compare a navigated drill and a navigated probe for the insertion of cervical pedicle screws at C3-6. Methodology This retrospective study included 106 patients treated with cervical pedicle screws at C3-6. In total, 52 patients with 200 cervical pedicle screws using a navigated drill (group D) and 54 patients with 170 cervical pedicle screws using a navigated probe (group P) were compared. The perforation rate, anatomical medial angle of the pedicle, and actual angle of the screw were investigated using computed tomography. The planning error was defined as when the pedicle screw was applied for a small pedicle width of <3.5 mm. All perforations except for planning errors were defined as technical perforations. Results Grade 1 screw perforations were identified in 16 and 17 screws in groups D and P, respectively. Overall, 88% of the perforations were medial in group D, and 82% of perforations were lateral in group P. Technical perforations were found in 7/191 (3.7%, group D) and 15/168 (8.9%, group P) screws. There were no significant differences in the anatomical angle of the pedicle between the groups. The mean medial angle of the pedicle screws was 24.7° (group D) and 30.9° (group P) (p < 0.05). Conclusions The perforation rate of group D was less than half of that of group P. This was because a navigated drill was able to create a bony pilot hole at the hard medial cortical wall of the pedicle with a small medial angle, which was difficult to do with a navigated probe. A navigated drill can be useful for cervical pedicle screw insertion at C3-6 because of its easiness and safety.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.