ArticleSpine surgery and related research2025
Preoperative Planning for Cervical Pedicle Screw Placement: Identifying Key Morphological Parameters.
Article in Spine surgery and related research, 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.
- Machine-Learning-Based Prediction of Cervical Pedicle Screw Malposition from Clinical and Anatomical Features.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Cervical pedicle screw (CPS) placement is crucial for posterior cervical fusion surgery due to its strong fixation ability. However, CPS insertion is associated with risks, including screw perforation, which can lead to complications such as vertebral artery injury and neurological deficits. Although previous studies have explored some morphological factors affecting CPS placement, comprehensive data on specific parameters contributing to perforation remains limited. This study aimed to investigate cervical vertebrae features associated with CPS perforation and established threshold values for improved preoperative planning. Methods: A retrospective analysis of 36 patients who underwent posterior cervical fusion surgery with CPS placement was conducted using preoperative computed tomography (CT)-based navigation. Cases with CPS insertion at C1 or C2 were excluded. The key morphological parameters-optimal screw trajectory angle, pedicle diameter, and distance from the entry point to the pedicle isthmus (DEP)-were measured on preoperative CT images. CPS placement accuracy was assessed postoperatively using Neo's classification. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis determined the cutoff values for predicting CPS perforation. Results: Among the 102 CPSs placed from C3 to C7, the overall perforation rate was 25.5%. C3 had the highest perforation rate (45.5%), whereas C7 had the lowest (3.1%). The vertebrae with CPS perforation exhibited a significantly larger optimal screw trajectory angle (45.5° vs. 38.0°, p<0.001), smaller pedicle diameter (4.2 mm vs. 5.2 mm, p<0.001), and longer DEP (13.2 mm vs. 11.9 mm, p=0.002). The ROC analysis identified the following cutoff values: 44.0° for the optimal angle, 4.35 mm for the pedicle diameter, and 12.7 mm for the DEP. These morphological parameters strongly predicted the risk of CPS perforation. Conclusions: Establishing key morphological thresholds enhances preoperative planning for CPS placement, improves accuracy and patient safety, and minimizes complications.
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.