ArticleBMC surgery2025
The accuracy of C-ARM in evaluating pelvic incidence and lumbar lordosis during surgery compared with EOS radiography after lumbar fixation.
Article in BMC 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAchieving the global spinal alignment, especially the pelvis, in spine surgeries is considered the most important factor in the success of these surgeries, which requires an accurate evaluation of the correction angles measured during surgery. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of the mobile C-arm X-ray machine (C-ARM) for measuring lumbar lordosis (LL) and pelvic incidence (PI) parameters during lumbar fixation.
methodsIn this prospective study, 59 lumbar fixation candidates who underwent surgery between 2020 and 2022 at our medical center, were examined. PI and LL parameters were measured at the fusion site with fluoroscopy, during surgery with C-ARM, and after surgery with EOS locally.
resultsThe mean age was 54.69 ± 17.62 years. 42 (71.2%) were female. The mean PI based on intraoperative C-ARM and post-surgery EOS findings were 54.57 ± 11.19 and 54.83 ± 11.17, respectively, which this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.9). The mean LL estimate based on C-ARM and EOS findings was similar (P: 0.44).A significant positive linear correlation was observed for the mean PI (r: 0.97, p: 0.001) and LL (r: 0.99, p: 0.001).
conclusionThe mean PI and LL angle during operation (measured with C-ARM) was similar to the mean of these parameters in EOS imaging findings after surgery. C-ARM can be used as a convenient device in the operating room with high precision to measure PI and LL values in spine surgeries.
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.