| Title |
Cervical pedicle screw instrumentation is more reliable with O-arm-based 3D navigation: analysis of cervical pedicle screw placement accuracy with O-arm-based 3D navigation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Spine Journal, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00586-018-5585-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sourabh Chachan, Hamid Rahmatullah Bin Abd Razak, Wee Lim Loo, John Carson Allen, Dinesh Shree Kumar |
| Abstract |
Despite proven biomechanical superiority and resultant superior clinical outcomes, pedicle instrumentation in cervical spine is not widely practiced due to technical difficulties, steep learning curve, and possible potential catastrophic complications due to screw misplacement. This study was undertaken with the purpose to evaluate the feasibility, accuracy, and complications of cervical pedicle screw instrumentation solely using O-arm-based 3D navigation technology. Prospectively maintained data from a single-surgeon case series were retrospectively analyzed. All the patients had undergone cervical pedicle instrumentation under O-arm 3D navigation. Screw placement accuracy was analyzed and compared among different vertebral levels and also between different patient groups. A total of 241 cervical pedicle screws were inserted in 44 patients. Out of the 241 screws, 197 (81.74%) were inserted at the level of C3-C6 vertebrae with nearly equal distribution among the 4 vertebrae, followed by 32 (13.28%) and 12 (4.98%) screws at C2 and C7 vertebrae, respectively. After the analysis of screw placement as per Gertzbein classification, the overall breach rates were found to be 7.05% (17 screws) with 52.94% (10 screws) Grade I, 47.06% (7 screws) Grade II, and nil Grade III screw breaches. The use of O-arm-based intra-operative 3D scans for navigation can make cervical pedicle screw placement reliable. High accuracy and better intra-operative control can increase surgeon's confidence in using cervical pedicle instrumentation on more regular basis. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 33% |
| France | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 33 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 21% |
| Other | 5 | 15% |
| Researcher | 5 | 15% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 12% |
| Unknown | 8 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 42% |
| Engineering | 2 | 6% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 14 | 42% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 November 2018.
All research outputs
#13,516,493
of 23,041,514 outputs
Outputs from European Spine Journal
#1,603
of 4,674 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#168,843
of 329,221 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Spine Journal
#13
of 100 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,041,514 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,674 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,221 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 100 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.