ArticleBrain & spine2026
The accuracy of pedicle screw placement in thoracolumbar fractures: A comparative study of automated cone-beam CT-based navigation and conventional fluoroscopy.
Article in Brain & spine, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Pedicle screw fixation is a standard technique for stabilizing unstable thoracolumbar fractures. Mobile cone-beam CT (CBCT) systems with robotic image acquisition enable automated navigation workflows, but clinical data in spine trauma remain limited. Research question: To compare pedicle screw accuracy and perioperative outcomes between automated CBCT-based navigation and conventional fluoroscopy in thoracolumbar fracture fixation. Material and methods: This single-centre retrospective cohort study included adults with unstable thoracolumbar spine injuries undergoing pedicle screw fixation during a 5.5-year period. In the CBCT group, intraoperative 3D navigation was performed using an automated CBCT system. Perioperative and postoperative variables were recorded, and screw placement was assessed using the Gertzbein-Robbins classification. Outcomes were compared between groups. Results: Forty-six patients were included: 25 treated with automated CBCT-based navigation and 21 with conventional fluoroscopy. Among 313 evaluable screws, 96.8% were graded Gertzbein-Robbins A or B, and no grade E breaches were observed. In CBCT screws, no grade D or E breach occurred, and no screw-related early reoperations were required. Total operative time was longer with CBCT (154 vs. 119 min; p = 0.018), and blood loss was numerically higher (259 vs. 179 mL; p = 0.272), although operative time and blood loss per pedicle screw did not differ significantly between groups. Length of hospital stay and early clinical outcomes were comparable. Conclusion: Automated CBCT-based intraoperative 3D navigation provides high pedicle screw accuracy and comparable perioperative outcomes. CBCT-based navigation enables real-time 3D visualization and intraoperative verification, supporting its role as a reliable imaging modality in spine trauma surgery.
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.