ArticleScientific reports2024
Comparison of different imaging devices and navigation systems for cervical pedicle screw placement: an experimental study on screw accuracy, screw placement time and radiation dose.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- An innovative 2D optical navigation workflow for percutaneous pedicle screw fixation in thoracolumbar fractures: comparison with O-arm 3D navigation.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Minimally invasive cervical spine stabilization: A multicenter study of completely percutaneous pedicle screw-rod instrumentation.Brain & spine · 2026Article
- [Radiological imaging of spinal trauma in special situations].Radiologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Review
- Robot-assisted cervical screw placement for atlantoaxial fixation.Neurosurgical focus: Video · 2025Article
- Comparison of open and percutaneous navigated pedicle screw placement for traumatic injuries of the subaxial cervical spine.Brain & spine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cervical pedicle screws (CPS) provide biomechanically superior fixation compared to other techniques but are technically more demanding. Navigated CPS placement has been increasingly reported as a safe and accurate technique, yet there are few studies comparing different combinations of imaging and navigation systems under comparable conditions. With this study, we aimed to compare different imaging and navigation systems for CPS placement in terms of accuracy, screw placement time and applied radiation dose. For this experimental study, navigated CPS placement was performed at levels C2 to C7 in 24 identical radiopaque artificial spine models by two surgeons with different levels of experience using three different combinations of intraoperative 3D imaging devices and navigation systems. Accuracy, time and radiation dose were compared between the groups. In total, 288 screws were placed. Accuracy was > 98% in all groups with no significant differences between groups or between surgeons (P = 0.30 and P = 0.31, respectively), but the inexperienced surgeon required significantly more time (P < 0.001). Radiation dose was significantly higher with iCT compared to CBCT (P < 0.0001). Under experimental conditions, accuracy rates of > 98% were achieved for navigated CPS placement regardless of the imaging modality or navigation system used. Radiation doses were significantly lower for CBCT compared to iCT guidance.
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.