Trial reportArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2025
Usability and acceptability of a power tool with electronic depth gauge for orthopedic drilling - a preclinical randomized controlled trial in sawbones.
Trial report in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionOrthopedic drilling and screw placement require precision to obtain the effect of bicortical screwing and avoid complications such as soft tissue damage. Traditional manual depth gauges, while effective, are prone to human error. This study evaluates the usability and acceptability of an automated electronic depth gauge compared to a conventional manual depth gauge in a preclinical setting.
methodsA randomized controlled cross-over trial was conducted with 45 participants of varying clinical experience (12 medical students, 11 resident doctors, and 22 consultants, 14/22 were senior consultants) at Aarhus University Hospital. According to randomization, participants used either the "electronic -> manual" or "manual -> electronic" depth gauge and subsequently the sequence "with -> without" or "without -> with" soft tissue protector to measure screw length in sawbones. Efficiency was assessed by measuring time (savings), and usability was evaluated using the System Usability Scale (SUS).
resultsThe electronic depth gauge significantly reduced the time required to measure screw length, with medical students saving the most time, p < 0.001. 65/331 (20%) of screws were changed, with no difference in the rate of screw changes between manual and electronic depth gauges, p = 0.76. Level of experience was significantly correlated with the rate of screw changes, p = 0.03. Resident doctors changed fewer screws than medical students, with no difference between the remaining groups. The median SUS score was 87.5, indicating excellent usability. Most participants rated the tool as "best imaginable" or "excellent."
conclusionThe electronic depth gauge was time-efficient and surgeons rated it as highly usable. However, screw exchanges were not significantly minimized in this study, which might be mitigated by proper training and awareness of device-specific recommendations. The effect of electronic depth gauges on screw exchange rates and its clinical applicability warrents further research.
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.