Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41039136›Full record

ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2026

CT vs. MRI-based synthetic CT: accuracy of thoracic and lumbar pedicle screw placement using 3D-printed guides.

Jules Cool, Peter P G Lafranca, Joëll Magré, Johannes G G Dobbe, Moyo C Kruyt, Geert J Streekstra, Tom P C Schlösser, Barend J van Royen

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article 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, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. CT vs. MRI-based synthetic CT: accuracy of thoracic and lumbar pedicle screw placement using 3D-printed guides.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 · 2026
    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

8 authors.

Jules CoolDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, Netherlands. j.cool@amsterdamumc.nl.
Peter P G LafrancaDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Joëll MagréDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Johannes G G DobbeMusculoskeletal Health - Restoration and Development, Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Moyo C KruytDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Geert J StreekstraMusculoskeletal Health - Restoration and Development, Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Tom P C SchlösserDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Barend J van RoyenDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Funding

Amsterdam Movement Sciences Dream big PhD grant 2023
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose3D-printed patient-specific guides enable accurate pedicle screw placement in the treatment of paediatric spinal deformities. MRI-based synthetic CT (sCT) eliminates the radiation exposure associated with the preoperative planning CT, while still providing detailed bony morphology. It may therefore offer a radiation-free method for pedicle screw navigation. Thus, the aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of thoracic and lumbar pedicle screw placement using 3D-printed guides based on conventional CT versus sCT.

methodsFull-spine MRI and CT images of four human cadaveric spines were obtained, followed by AI-generation of sCTs, the digital planning of pedicle screws and 3D-printed guide manufacturing. A total of 62 K-wires were inserted, 30 sCT-based and 32 CT-based. Accuracy was evaluated by superimpose analysis of planned and achieved trajectories, and by the postoperative grading of the cortical breach rate using the Gertzbein-Robbins classification, based on projected screws along the K-wires.

resultsMedian translational entry-point deviations were 1.0 mm vertically and 0.5 mm horizontally for both sCT-based guides and CT-based guides. Angular deviations in the axial plane were 1.0˚ for sCT and 0.9˚ for CT. In the sagittal plane these were 1.8˚ and 2.1˚, respectively. No significant differences were observed between sCT and CT. Grading of pedicle's cortical breach showed no severe malposition for both sCT- and CT-based guides.

conclusionsCT matched the accuracy of conventional CT in providing source data for personalized 3D-printed guides for thoracic and lumbar pedicle screw placement in terms of translational- and angular deviations, and cortical breach rates in this cadaveric study.

Indexed as

Lumbar VertebraeMagnetic Resonance ImagingPedicle ScrewsPrinting, Three-DimensionalSpinal FusionSurgery, Computer-AssistedThoracic VertebraeTomography, X-Ray ComputedCadaverFemaleHumansMale3D-printed guidesAccuracyMRIPedicle screwsSpineSuperimpose analysis

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.