Accuracy of pin placement in the canine thoracolumbar spine using a free‐hand probing technique versus 3D‐printed patient‐specific drill guides: An ex‐vivo study
To compare pin placement accuracy, intraoperative technique deviations, and duration of pin placement for pins placed by free-hand probing (FHP) or 3D-printed drill guide (3DPG) technique.
Four greyhound cadavers.
Computed tomography (CT) examinations from T6-sacrum were obtained for determination of optimal pin placement and 3DPG creation. Two 3.2/2.4-mm positive profile pins were inserted per vertebra, one left and one right from T7-L7 (FHP [n = 56]; 3DPG [n = 56]) by one surgeon and removed for repeat CT. Duration of pin placement and intraoperative deviations (unanticipated deviations from planned technique) were recorded. Pin tracts were graded by two blinded observers using modified Zdichavsky classification. Descriptive statistics were used.
A total of 54/56 pins placed with 3DPGs were assigned grade I (optimal placement) compared with 49/56 pins using the FHP technique. A total of 2/56 pins placed with 3DPGs and 3/56 pins using the FHP technique were assigned grade IIa (partial medial violation). A total of 4/56 pins placed using the FHP technique were assigned grade IIIa (partial lateral violation). No pins were assigned grade IIb (full medial violation). Intraoperative technique deviations occurred with 6/56 pins placed using the FHP technique and no pins with 3DPGs. Overall, pins were placed faster (mean ± SD 2.6 [1.3] vs. 4.5 [1.8] min) with 3DPGs.
Both techniques were accurate for placement of spinal fixation pins. The 3DPG technique may decrease intraoperative deviations and duration of pin placement.
Both techniques allow accurate pin placement in the canine thoracolumbar spine. The FHP technique requires specific training and has learning curve, whereas 3DPG technique requires specific software and 3D printers.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 20 April 2023.
All research outputs
#15,998,465
of 25,753,031 outputs
Outputs from Veterinary Surgery
#411
of 1,732 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#205,394
of 416,981 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Veterinary Surgery
#5
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,753,031 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,732 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 416,981 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
