Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39907775›Full record

Observational studyEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2025

Cervical pedicle screw placement with patient-specific 3D-printed guides: accuracy and safety in a clinical experience.

Nicola Marengo, Stefano Colonna, Enrico Lo Bue, Alessandro Pesaresi, Ayoub Saaid, Mario Allevi, Marco Ajello, Geert Mahieu, Diego Garbossa, Fabio Cofano

Abstract readObservational Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study 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, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Global Workflow of a Comanipulation-Based Robotic System for Cervical Spine Surgery.The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

10 authors.

Nicola Marengo *Neurosurgery, Department of Neuroscience, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Stefano Colonna *Neurosurgery, Department of Neuroscience, University of Turin, Turin, Italy. stefano.colonna@unito.it.ORCID 0009-0004-4576-3260
Enrico Lo BueNeurosurgery, Department of Neuroscience, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Alessandro PesaresiNeurosurgery, Department of Neuroscience, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Ayoub SaaidNeurosurgery, Department of Neuroscience, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Mario AlleviNeurosurgery, Department of Neuroscience, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Marco AjelloNeurosurgery, Department of Neuroscience, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Geert MahieuOrthopedic Surgery Department, ORTHOCA - AZ Monica Hospital, Antwerp, Belgium.
Diego GarbossaNeurosurgery, Department of Neuroscience, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Fabio CofanoNeurosurgery, Department of Neuroscience, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeCervical pedicle screw (CPS) instrumentation offers significant biomechanical advantages compared to lateral mass or transarticular fixation. Nonetheless, malpositioning complications constitute a relevant concern. Customized patient-specific 3D-printed templates have been developed to improve CPS placement accuracy and safety. The aim of this study is to present our experience with this surgical technique and its accuracy and safety in a clinical setting.

methodsThis single-center retrospective observational study of prospectively collected data included patients undergoing CPS fixation surgery using a patient-specific 3D template guide system. All patients underwent a 3D-volumetric high-resolution CT scan of the cervical spine for preoperative surgical planning. Postoperative CT scans were used to evaluate pedicle perforation, CPS trajectories, and deviations between the planned and the actual screw position.

resultsA total of 115 CPS were implanted in 25 patients, with 107 (93.1%) of the screws completely placed inside the pedicle. Cortical breach within 2 mm was observed in 8 (6.9%) cases, with no cases of more severe pedicle infractions or perioperative neurovascular complication. No differences of CPS accuracies were found between each metameric fusion level, and between monolateral or bilateral templates. Mean total deviations were 0.75 mm vertically and 0.51 mm horizontally at the screw entry point, and 0.72 mm vertically and horizontally at the narrowest pedicle point. Mean total sagittal and transverse angular deviations were 2.94° and 3.04°, respectively.

conclusionCervical pedicle screw placement using patient-specific guides is safe and accurate, supporting the feasibility of this technique in posterior cervical spine fusion surgery.

Indexed as

Cervical VertebraePedicle ScrewsPrinting, Three-DimensionalSpinal FusionSurgery, Computer-AssistedAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesTomography, X-Ray ComputedCervical pedicle screwPatient-specific templatePedicle screw instrumentationThree-dimensional model

Identifiers

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.