FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2073607156> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2073607156 endingPage "244" @default.
• W2073607156 startingPage "239" @default.
• W2073607156 abstract "The objectives of this study were (1) to quantify the benefit of computer assisted orthopaedic surgery (CAOS) pedicle screw insertion in a porcine cadaver model evaluated by dissection and computed tomography (CT); (2) to compare the effect on performance of four surgeons with no experience of CAOS, and varying experience of pedicle screw insertion; (3) to see if CT with extended windows was an acceptable method to evaluate the position of the pedicle screws in the porcine cadaver model, compared to dissection. This was a prospective, randomised, controlled and blinded porcine cadaver study. Twelve 6-month-old porcine (white skinned Landrace) lumbar spines were scanned pre-operatively by spiral CT, as required for the CAOS computer data set. Computer randomisation allocated the specimens to one of four surgeons, all new to CAOS but with different levels of experience in spinal surgery. The usual anatomical landmarks for the freehand technique were known to all four surgeons. Two pedicles at each vertebral level were randomly allocated between conventional free hand insertion and an electromagnetic image guided surgery (NAVITRAK®) and 6.5 mm cancellous AO screws inserted. Post-operatively, spiral CT was blindly evaluated by an independent radiologist and the spine fellow to assess the accuracy of pedicle screw placement, by each method. The inter- and intra-observer reliability of CT was evaluated compared to dissection. The pedicle screw placement was assessed as perfect if within the pedicle along its central axis, or acceptable (within < 2 mm from perfect), and measured in millimetres from perfect thereafter. One hundred and sixty-six of 168 pedicles in 12 porcine spines were operated on. Complete data were present for 163 pedicles (81 CAOS, 82 freehand). In the CAOS group 84% of screws were deemed acceptable or perfect, compared to 75.6% with the freehand technique. Screw misplacement was significantly reduced using CAOS (P = 0.049). Seventy-nine percent of CAOS screws were ideally placed compared with 64% with a conventional freehand technique (P = 0.05). A logistic linear regression model showed that the miss placed pedicle screw rate was significantly reduced using CAOS (P = 0.047). CAOS benefited the least experienced surgeons most (the research registrars acceptable rate increased from 70 to 90% and the spine fellow from 76 to 86%). CAOS did not have a statistically significant effect on the experienced consultant spine surgeon increasing from 70 to 79% (P = 0.39). The experienced general orthopaedic surgeon did not benefit from CAOS (P = 0.5). CT compared to dissection showed an intra-observer reliability of 99.4% and inter-observer reliability of 92.6%. The conclusions of this study were as follows: (1) an increased number of pedicle screws were ideally placed using the CAOS electromagnetic guidance system compared to the conventional freehand technique; (2) junior surgeons benefited most from CAOS; (3) we believe CAOS (Navitrak®) with porcine lumbar spines evaluated by post operative CT, represents a useful model for training junior surgeons in pedicle screw placement; (4) experienced spine surgeons, who have never used CAOS, may find CAOS less helpful than previously reported." @default.
• W2073607156 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2073607156 creator A5001187649 @default.
• W2073607156 creator A5001650744 @default.
• W2073607156 creator A5011249040 @default.
• W2073607156 creator A5036117425 @default.
• W2073607156 creator A5050158468 @default.
• W2073607156 creator A5058911175 @default.
• W2073607156 creator A5084473675 @default.
• W2073607156 date "2006-05-09" @default.
• W2073607156 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W2073607156 title "Assessment of CAOS as a training model in spinal surgery: a randomised study" @default.
• W2073607156 cites W1991192922 @default.
• W2073607156 cites W1994146633 @default.
• W2073607156 cites W2002649759 @default.
• W2073607156 cites W2003231513 @default.
• W2073607156 cites W2008086947 @default.
• W2073607156 cites W2043619210 @default.
• W2073607156 cites W2047099450 @default.
• W2073607156 cites W2063177025 @default.
• W2073607156 cites W2064673484 @default.
• W2073607156 cites W2072547850 @default.
• W2073607156 cites W2113413823 @default.
• W2073607156 cites W2122248716 @default.
• W2073607156 cites W2128038049 @default.
• W2073607156 cites W2315757648 @default.
• W2073607156 cites W2331318729 @default.
• W2073607156 cites W2335548596 @default.
• W2073607156 cites W2410471765 @default.
• W2073607156 cites W4235415766 @default.
• W2073607156 doi "https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-006-0109-9" @default.
• W2073607156 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/2200694" @default.
• W2073607156 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16683122" @default.
• W2073607156 hasPublicationYear "2006" @default.
• W2073607156 type Work @default.
• W2073607156 sameAs 2073607156 @default.
• W2073607156 citedByCount "15" @default.
• W2073607156 countsByYear W20736071562013 @default.
• W2073607156 countsByYear W20736071562014 @default.
• W2073607156 countsByYear W20736071562015 @default.
• W2073607156 countsByYear W20736071562016 @default.
• W2073607156 countsByYear W20736071562017 @default.
• W2073607156 countsByYear W20736071562018 @default.
• W2073607156 countsByYear W20736071562019 @default.
• W2073607156 countsByYear W20736071562020 @default.
• W2073607156 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2073607156 hasAuthorship W2073607156A5001187649 @default.
• W2073607156 hasAuthorship W2073607156A5001650744 @default.
• W2073607156 hasAuthorship W2073607156A5011249040 @default.
• W2073607156 hasAuthorship W2073607156A5036117425 @default.
• W2073607156 hasAuthorship W2073607156A5050158468 @default.
• W2073607156 hasAuthorship W2073607156A5058911175 @default.
• W2073607156 hasAuthorship W2073607156A5084473675 @default.
• W2073607156 hasBestOaLocation W20736071562 @default.
• W2073607156 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2073607156 hasConcept C2775862295 @default.
• W2073607156 hasConcept C2775901119 @default.
• W2073607156 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2073607156 hasConcept C91762617 @default.
• W2073607156 hasConceptScore W2073607156C141071460 @default.
• W2073607156 hasConceptScore W2073607156C2775862295 @default.
• W2073607156 hasConceptScore W2073607156C2775901119 @default.
• W2073607156 hasConceptScore W2073607156C71924100 @default.
• W2073607156 hasConceptScore W2073607156C91762617 @default.
• W2073607156 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W2073607156 hasLocation W20736071561 @default.
• W2073607156 hasLocation W20736071562 @default.
• W2073607156 hasLocation W20736071563 @default.
• W2073607156 hasLocation W20736071564 @default.
• W2073607156 hasOpenAccess W2073607156 @default.
• W2073607156 hasPrimaryLocation W20736071561 @default.
• W2073607156 hasRelatedWork W113810927 @default.
• W2073607156 hasRelatedWork W1586374228 @default.
• W2073607156 hasRelatedWork W2003938723 @default.
• W2073607156 hasRelatedWork W2047967234 @default.
• W2073607156 hasRelatedWork W2118496982 @default.
• W2073607156 hasRelatedWork W2364998975 @default.
• W2073607156 hasRelatedWork W2369162477 @default.
• W2073607156 hasRelatedWork W2439875401 @default.
• W2073607156 hasRelatedWork W4238867864 @default.
• W2073607156 hasRelatedWork W2525756941 @default.
• W2073607156 hasVolume "16" @default.
• W2073607156 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2073607156 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2073607156 magId "2073607156" @default.
• W2073607156 workType "article" @default.