| Title |
Spinal navigation for minimally invasive thoracic and lumbosacral spine fixation: implications for radiation exposure, operative time, and accuracy of pedicle screw placement
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Spine Journal, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00586-018-5587-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
T. Tajsic, K. Patel, R. Farmer, R. J. Mannion, R. A. Trivedi |
| Abstract |
Navigation is emerging as a useful adjunct in percutaneous, minimally invasive spinal surgery (MIS). The aim of this study was to compare C-Arm navigated, O-Arm navigated and conventional 2D-fluoroscopy assisted MIS thoracic and lumbosacral spine fixation techniques in terms of operating time, radiation exposure and accuracy of pedicle screw (PS) placement. Retrospective observational study of 152 consecutive adults who underwent MIS fixations for spinal instability: 96 2D-fluoroscopy assisted, 39 3D-C-Arm navigated and 27 using O-Arm navigated. O-Arm navigation significantly reduced PS misplacement (1.23%, p) compared to 3D-C-Arm navigation (7.29%, p = 0.0082) and 2D-fluoro guided placement (5.16%, p = 0379). 3D-C-Arm navigation was associated with lower procedural radiation exposure of the patient (0.4 mSv) than O-Arm navigation (3.24 mSv) or 2D-fluoro guidance (1.5 mSv). Operative time was comparable between three modalities. O-Arm navigation provides greater accuracy of percutaneous instrumentation placement with an acceptable procedural radiation dose delivered to the patients and comparable operative times. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary material. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 46 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 6 | 13% |
| Researcher | 6 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 7 | 15% |
| Unknown | 17 | 37% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 35% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 9% |
| Engineering | 2 | 4% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 22 | 48% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 17 April 2018.
All research outputs
#18,603,172
of 23,043,346 outputs
Outputs from European Spine Journal
#2,504
of 4,674 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#253,819
of 327,033 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Spine Journal
#27
of 90 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,043,346 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 327,033 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 90 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.