ArticleScientific reports2025
A new method of accurate pedicle screw navigation.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A large, paired dataset of robotic and handheld lumbar spine ultrasound with ground-truth CT benchmarking.Scientific data · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
One of the most established approaches to navigate pedicle screws is the planning and alignment (PA) method. Thereby a trajectory and associated entry point (EP) is planned and navigated after referencing to patient anatomy. However, deviations from the planned EP potentially lead to an altered screw position. The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of these EP deviations and to examine possible alternative methods. The merits of two new points of reference (screw tip point STP and midpoint MP) were therefore analyzed. STP represents the point on the optimal screw tip, MP the point at the center/midportion of the pedicle at its narrowest portion. The adapted screw trajectory was defined as the directional vector from any chosen EP to the STP or MP. First, computer simulations were used to evaluate the performance of these new approaches. Subsequently, the navigation technique yielding more acceptable screws in case of an EP deviation was analyzed on phantom-sawbone models. Both new methods showed a significantly larger number of possible screw trajectories in the simulations (p < 0.01). Even with a deliberate deviation of 4.5 mm (IQR 3.3) from the optimal EP, a perforation-free screw diameter of 4.9 mm (IQR 5.7 mm) could be achieved using the new navigation techniques. The simulated perforations were mainly located laterally with a median of 8.45 mm (IQR 3.95) distance to the medial pedicle wall. The PA method seems to be susceptible to EP deviations. The STP and MP methods are possible improvement mechanisms to overcome this disadvantage.
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.