ArticleNorth American Spine Society journal2026
Radiation reduction in computer-assisted spinal deformity surgery using 3D and 2D pediatric specific low-dose fluoroscopy protocols.
Article in North American Spine Society journal, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Computer-assisted navigation (CAN) facilitates accurate pedicle screw insertion in the surgical correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS), but exposes patients to ionizing radiation via 3D cone-beam CT and 2D fluoroscopy. The aim of this study was to evaluate pediatric-specific low-dose 3D and 2D imaging protocols, assessing their effect on radiation reduction and imaging quality. Methods: Thirty AIS patients were prospectively enrolled: 10 in the standard 3D protocol and 20 in the low-dose 3D protocol. Standard- and low-dose 2D fluoroscopy was used throughout, independently from 3D dose. Outcome measures included intraoperative radiation dose expressed as dose-area product (DAP), objective image quality (signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR)), and subjective image quality scoring. Results: The median 3D radiation dose was significantly lower for the low-dose protocol compared to the standard protocol (24.6 vs. 57.7 cGy*cm Conclusions: The low-dose 3D protocol achieved a radiation reduction of 57%. Despite minor, nonsignificant reductions in SNR and CNR, subjective image quality remained adequate. This supports clinical adoption of the low-dose 3D protocol, offering substantial radiation savings. 2D fluoroscopy also contributed substantially to total intraoperative dose. 2D dose may be reduced by intraoperative measures such as minimizing frame rate.
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.