ArticleJournal of spine surgery (Hong Kong)2024
Application of three-dimensional printed biomodels in endoscopic spinal surgery.
Article in Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Emerging Innovations in Preoperative Planning and Motion Analysis in Orthopedic Surgery.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Low-Cost 3D Models for Cervical Spine Tumor Removal Training for Neurosurgery Residents.Brain sciences · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Three-dimensional printing (3DP) is increasingly used to individualise surgery and may be an effective tool for representing patient anatomy. Current literature on patient-specific anatomical models (biomodels) for minimally invasive spinal surgery is a limited number of case series and cohort studies. However, studies investigating 3DP in other specialties have reported multiple benefits. Methods: This prospective study considered a series of patients (n=33) undergoing elective endoscopic spinal surgery, including combinations of microdiscectomy (n=27), foraminotomy (n=7), and laminectomy (n=3). These surgeries were conducted at vertebral levels ranging from L2/3 to L5/S1. The surgeon then recorded the impact on preoperational planning, intraoperative decision-making and accelerating the learning curve with a qualitative questionnaire. Results: There were benefits to planning in 54.5% of cases (n=18), improved intraoperative decision-making in 60.6% of cases (n=20). These benefits were reported more frequently earlier in the cases, with improvements to learning reported in 60% of the first five cases and not in subsequent cases. The surgeon commented that the biomodels were more useful on. Conclusions: The rates of preoperative and intraoperative benefits are consistent with existing studies, and the early benefit to the learning curve may be suitable for applications to surgical training. Additional research is required to determine the practicality of biomodels and their impact on patient outcomes for endoscopic spinal surgery.
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.