ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2026
The role of 3D simulation and osteotomy guides in improving surgical outcomes for complex spinal deformities: a comparative study.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 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
backgroundComplex spinal deformities, characterized by rigidity and imbalance, pose significant surgical challenges due to difficulties in correction and associated neurological risks. Recent advances in 3D-printed osteotomy guides offer a promising approach to improve the precision of vertebral cutting. This study retrospectively compares the corrective outcomes of 3D simulation with freehand execution versus 3D simulation with guide-assisted execution.
methodsA retrospective, non-randomized comparative study was conducted, in which 50 patients were initially screened, and 45 patients who met all eligibility criteria were included for final analysis between 2022 and 2025. All patients underwent global spine 3D reconstruction and simulated osteotomies which were based on curve patterns and sagittal/coronal balance preoperatively. Patients were divided into freehand correction group and osteotomy guides group. The correction outcomes of various deformity types and surgical approaches were compared between the two cohorts. The primary outcome was to evaluate the agreement between the osteotomy correction angle planned by preoperative three-dimensional simulation and the correction angle actually obtained postoperatively in patients with complex spinal deformities.
resultsForty-five patients were included, with 23 patients undergoing freehand correction only and 22 patients undergoing combined osteotomy guides. The average main curve (98.64 ± 33.21°) significantly decreased to 40.7 ± 13.3° postoperatively. The freehand correction group demonstrated significantly lower correction rates compared to the guides group (55.9 ± 9.1% versus 62.4 ± 14.1%, p = 0.02). There were no significant differences observed in surgical time and estimated blood loss (EBL) between groups (p = 0.18 and p = 0.37). The use of patient-specific osteotomy guides in PSO procedures resulted in significantly better correction (mean 56.1°±30.8°) versus freehand technique (mean 42.4°±11.4°, p = 0.03). Superior consistency was achieved by the osteotomy guides group compared to the freehand surgical group (ICC = 0.981 vs. 0.668).
conclusionUtilizing preoperative 3D surgical simulation, osteotomies performed with 3D-printed patient-specific guides achieved better correction accuracy than freehand techniques. Guide-assisted osteotomies achieved closer agreement with preoperative simulation, reflected by smaller angle deviations and substantially higher ICC values.
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.