ArticleTomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.)2026
Supine CT-Guided Posterior Approach Using a Dorsal-Space Mat: Initial Clinical Experience and Geometric Characterization.
Article in Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.), 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesTo evaluate the clinical feasibility, safety, and geometric characteristics of a supine CT-guided posterior approach using a custom dorsal-space mat in patients for whom the supine position was required or preferred.
methodsThis retrospective study included 16 consecutive patients prepared for the approach. Puncture trajectory parameters, positional stability, technical success, procedure time, and adverse events were evaluated in successfully positioned patients (
resultsPositioning feasibility was 15/16 (93.8%); one patient was converted to a lateral approach due to shoulder pain. Technical success was 100% per patient (15/15) and per trajectory (35/35). The mean puncture angle and depth were 40.2° ± 9.1° and 8.3 ± 2.5 cm, respectively. All puncture angles were within theoretical geometric limits, with a mean angular margin of 14.9° ± 10.9°. Quantitative stability assessment was feasible in 14 patients; median two-dimensional displacement and absolute axial rotation were 4.1 mm (IQR, 3.3-4.5 mm) and 0.9° (IQR, 0.3-1.2°), respectively. Between-group differences observed in the trajectory-level analysis were not statistically significant in the patient-level sensitivity analysis. One Grade 5 adverse event occurred after RFA; although a relationship with the procedure could not be excluded, it was unrelated to the mat or puncture trajectory.
conclusionsThis preliminary feasibility study suggests that the dorsal-space mat can provide sufficient working space for CT-guided posterior procedures while maintaining the supine position. Larger prospective studies are required to establish its broader clinical applicability and safety.
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.