ArticleJournal of spine surgery (Hong Kong)2025
How good are we at rod bending?-a review of the literature and a case series of experienced pediatric and adult scoliosis surgeons.
Article in Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong), 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.
- Paper template-based intraoperative rod bending for percutaneous stabilization of thoracic extension-distraction fracture: illustrative case.Journal of neurosurgery. Case lessons · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Manual contouring and insertion of spinal rods during corrective spinal fusion surgery are critical but challenging aspects that heavily rely on the surgeon's skill and experience. Variability in rod manipulation techniques can lead to prolonged surgery times, increased risks, and potential complications such as rod breakage or screw loosening. This case series reviews current literature and presents observational data on intraoperative rod manipulation across nine surgeries, providing insights that are crucial to improving surgical precision and outcomes. Case Description: The case series involves nine spinal surgery cases with patients ranging from pediatric to adult. Each case was observed for the number of rod bending and cutting maneuvers, time spent on these tasks, and the tools used. Results indicated that the total time spent on rod manipulation ranged up to 29 minutes, with 77.8% of cases requiring more than one attempt to achieve the correct rod length. Inefficiencies in rod length measurement and excessive bending attempts were commonly noted, leading to potential complications such as rod notching. The study concluded that these challenges significantly contribute to prolonged surgery times, increased risk of infection, and the potential for mechanical failure of the rods. By identifying specific areas of inefficiency and variability, this case series underscores the critical need for more standardized techniques and the development of more precise, easy-to-use tools that can improve surgical outcomes. Conclusions: This case series highlights significant variability and inefficiency in current spinal rod manipulation techniques, underscoring the need for standardized, precise methods that can reduce surgery time and improve patient outcomes. The findings provide a foundation for further research into simpler, more adaptable tools that could enhance the accuracy and efficiency of rod insertion in spinal 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.