Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38548932›Full record

ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2024

Impact of intraoperative imaging on decision-making during spine surgery: a survey among spine surgeons using simulated intraoperative images.

Bas J J Bindels, Renée Hovenier, Olivier Q Groot, Koen L Vincken, Jan J Rongen, Maarten L J Smits, Jorrit-Jan Verlaan

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Feature-based multimodal 3D/2D and 3D/3D registration framework for pedicle screw registration and evaluation.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Bas J J BindelsDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands. b.j.j.bindels@umcutrecht.nl.ORCID 0000-0001-8917-491X
Renée HovenierDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Olivier Q GrootDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Koen L VinckenDepartment of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Jan J RongenPhilips Medical Systems International B.V., Veenpluis 6, 5684 PC, Best, The Netherlands.
Maarten L J SmitsDepartment of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Jorrit-Jan VerlaanDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Heidelberg University · DEPhilips (Netherlands) · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo assess whether the intention to intraoperatively reposition pedicle screws differs when spine surgeons evaluate the same screws with 2D imaging or 3D imaging.

methodsIn this online survey study, 21 spine surgeons evaluated eight pedicle screws from patients who had undergone posterior spinal fixation. In a simulated intraoperative setting, surgeons had to decide if they would reposition a marked pedicle screw based on its position in the provided radiologic imaging. The eight assessed pedicle screws varied in radiologic position, including two screws positioned within the pedicle, two breaching the pedicle cortex < 2 mm, two breaching the pedicle cortex 2-4 mm, and two positioned completely outside the pedicle. Surgeons assessed each pedicle screw twice without knowing and in random order: once with a scrollable three-dimensional (3D) image and once with two oblique fluoroscopic two-dimensional (2D) images.

resultsAlmost all surgeons (19/21) intended to reposition more pedicle screws based on 3D imaging than on 2D imaging, with a mean number of pedicle screws to be repositioned of, respectively, 4.1 (± 1.3) and 2.0 (± 1.3; p < 0.001). Surgeons intended to reposition two screws placed completely outside the pedicle, one breaching 2-4mm, and one breaching < 2 mm more often based on 3D imaging.

conclusionWhen provided with 3D imaging, spine surgeons not only intend to intraoperatively reposition pedicle screws at risk of causing postoperative complications more often but also screws with acceptable positions. This study highlights the potential of intraoperative 3D imaging as well as the need for consensus on how to act on intraoperative 3D information.

Indexed as

Pedicle ScrewsClinical Decision-MakingHumansImaging, Three-DimensionalSpinal FusionSpineSurgeonsSurveys and QuestionnairesAccuracyPedicle screwSpine surgeryThree-dimensional imagingTwo-dimensional imaging

Identifiers

PMID38548932
OpenAlexW4393253240

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.