ArticleNagoya journal of medical science2024
A novel technique for C1-C2 posterior screw insertion using patient-specific guides created by CT-based 3D printing.
Article in Nagoya journal of medical science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
C1-C2 fixation has been developed for the rigid fusion of atlantoaxial instability. C1 lateral mass screw (C1 LMS)-C2 pedicle screw fixation is used more frequently due to its rigid fixation and high bone fusion rate. However, C1 screw placement is relatively unsafe even with recently developed image-based navigation systems. Patient-specific screw guide templates (PSGT) were developed to improve the accuracy and safety of C1 screw placement. Herein, we investigated the outcomes of the C1-C2 posterior fixation technique using PSGT. This was a retrospective study of six patients who underwent posterior cervical spinal fusion using the PSGT between January 2022 and April 2023. Operative time, estimated blood loss, intraoperative radiation dose, surgical cost, and screw placement accuracy were evaluated and compared with those achieved with preoperative CT-based navigation (navigation group, n = 15). Screw accuracy was assessed using Neo's classification. PSGT showed good results, although the differences were not statistically significant (operation time: 104.3 ± 9.7 min vs 116.4 ± 20.8 min; estimated blood loss: 56.7 ± 72.4 mL vs 123.2 ± 162.3 mL; and radiation dose: 1.8 ± 1.2 mSv vs 2.6 ± 0.8 mSv, respectively). PSGT was particularly better in terms of the accuracy of C1 LMS (PSGT: 100%, navigation: 83.3%). The deviation at the entry point was minimal, and the difference between the sagittal and transversal angles from the preoperative plan was small. We investigated the clinical efficacy of using the PSGT for C1-C2 posterior fixation. PSGT improved the accuracy of C1 LMS insertion.
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.