ArticleJournal of spine surgery (Hong Kong)2026
Automated multi-objective pedicle screw planning.
Article in Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong), 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Posterior spinal fusion is a common procedure, but manual pedicle screw planning is time-consuming, cognitively demanding, and may not fully leverage patient-specific anatomy. Pedicle screws are vulnerable to loosening, a complication linked to poor anchorage. This study aimed to develop and evaluate an automated pedicle screw planning framework for multi-level fusion, designed to simultaneously optimize clinical safety, biomechanical stability, and screw head alignment. Methods: The proposed automated screw planning workflow was compared with clinical standard manual planning on 20 clinical computed tomography (CT) scans comprising 238 pedicle screws. The automated pipeline utilized neural network-based segmentation, template mesh fitting, and multi-objective optimization balancing clinical safety, biomechanical stability, and rod conformity. Clinical safety was assessed using the Gertzbein-Robbins classification system. Comparative analysis evaluated bone density coverage via Hounsfield unit (HU) measurements and screw head alignment through angular misalignment calculations. Results: Clinical safety assessment demonstrated high anatomical accuracy, with 87.8% grade A and 12.2% grade B screws per the Gertzbein-Robbins scale, with a median grade B breach of 0.8 mm. The automated method also achieved a median relative improvement of 74.9% (P<0.001) in HU coverage and a median relative improvement of 58.6% (P<0.001) in screw-head misalignment. The proposed automated pedicle screw planning pipeline yields clinically safe screw plans that may improve screw stability while reducing rod bending requirements. Conclusions: The assessed approach carries significant clinical potential in simplifying the intraoperative workflow while improving the surgical outcome.
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.