ArticleBrain & spine2025
Use of modern magnetic resonance imaging technology for lumbar screw planning.
Article in Brain & spine, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Preoperative screw planning enables the use of modern technologies such as navigation and robotics. To reduce radiation exposure to patients, there is growing interest in Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) technologies. Research question: This study assesses the use of isotropic MRI and synthetic Computed Tomographies (sCT) for planning lumbar screws. Methods: Two 3D T1-weighted scans were performed on 22 patients, one isotropic fast spin-echo sequence, and one multi-echo gradient echo sequence for generating sCTs. A total of 200 screws were planned equally split across the isotropic MRIs and sCTs. All scans were then fused to an intraoperative scan for evaluation. Each screw was evaluated by three surgeons using Gertzbein-Robbins classification and a qualitative survey. Results: A mean interrater agreement of 94.5 % (83 %-100 %) was observed. A significant difference was identified in the Gertzbein-Robbins classification (P = 0.04) where sCT had the most A and B rated screws. The qualitative survey identified differences in screw length and screw positioning but not in screw diameter. Discussion and conclusion: Nearly 75 % of cases can use modern MRI sequences for planning of lumbar screws. Where the MRI sequence alone is insufficient for total confidence, sCT can be used to supplement the scan and enable effective planning in approximately 90 % of patients without the need for ionizing radiation.
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.