ArticleBMC surgery2026
Clinical efficacy of 3D-printed guide plates in single-level lumbar degenerative disease: a retrospective comparative study.
Article in BMC surgery, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate the clinical efficacy of 3D-printed guide plate-assisted pedicle screw placement for single-level lumbar degenerative diseases.
methodsA retrospective comparative study was conducted on 60 patients who underwent surgical pedicle screw placement and interbody fusion due to lumbar degenerative diseases from January 2023 to December 2023. Patients were divided into two groups: a test group (n=30) using 3D-printed guide plates for individualized pedicle screw placement and a control group (n=30) using traditional freehand techniques. Operation time, pedicle screw placement time, intraoperative fluoroscopy exposure, blood loss, and postoperative complications were compared between the two groups. Additionally, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were assessed at 1, 6, and 12 months postoperatively.
resultsThe operation time, screw placement time, intraoperative fluoroscopy exposures, and blood loss in the test group were 63.57 ± 12.18 min, 23.69 ± 3.63 min, 15.26 ± 4.15 times, and 48.82 ± 13.72 ml, respectively, significantly lower than those in the control group (85.56 ± 16.27 min, 41.36 ± 8.12 min, 26.96 ± 6.93 times, and 74.35 ± 18.64 ml; P < 0.05). In the test group, screw placement accuracy was 97.5% (117 screws of Grade 0, 3 screws of Grade 1), significantly higher than the control group's accuracy of 88.33% (106 screws of Grade 0, 13 screws of Grade 1, and 1 screw of Grade 2; P < 0.05). Although postoperative VAS scores and ODI values statistically improved over time (P <0.05), no statistically significant difference was found between groups at the same time points (P<0.05). No postoperative complications were reported.
conclusions3D-printed guides can improve screw placement accuracy and operative efficiency. However, for routine single-level lumbar degenerative disease, clinical outcomes were not superior to conventional methods. Broader studies are needed to establish their cost-effectiveness and long-term benefit.
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.