Ex vivo comparison of pin placement with patient‐specific drill guides or freehand technique in canine cadaveric spines
Objective To compare vertebral implant placement in the canine thoracolumbar spine between 3D‐printed patient‐specific drill guides (3DPG) and the conventional freehand technique (FH). Study design Ex vivo study. Animals Cadaveric canine spines (n = 24). Methods Implant trajectories were established...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Veterinary surgery 2024-02, Vol.53 (2), p.254-263 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 263 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | 254 |
| container_title | Veterinary surgery |
| container_volume | 53 |
| creator | Guevara, Francisco Foss, Kari D. Harper, Tisha A. M. Moran, Clara A. Hague, Devon W. Hamel, Philip E. S. Schaeffer, David J. McCoy, Annette M. |
| description | Objective
To compare vertebral implant placement in the canine thoracolumbar spine between 3D‐printed patient‐specific drill guides (3DPG) and the conventional freehand technique (FH).
Study design
Ex vivo study.
Animals
Cadaveric canine spines (n = 24).
Methods
Implant trajectories were established for the left and right sides of the T10 through L6 vertebrae based on computed tomography (CT) imaging. Customized drill guides were created for each vertebra of interest. Each cadaver was randomly assigned to one of six veterinarians with varying levels of experience placing vertebral implants. Vertebrae were randomly assigned a surgical order and technique (3DPG or FH) for both sides. Postoperative CT images were acquired. A single, blinded observer assessed pin placement using a modified Zdichavsky classification.
Results
A total of 480 implants were placed in 240 vertebrae. Three sites were excluded from the analysis; therefore, a total of 238 implants were evaluated using the FH technique and 239 implants using 3DPG. When evaluating implant placement, 152/239 (63.6%) of 3DPG implants were considered to have an acceptable placement in comparison with 115/248 (48.32%) with FH. Overall, pin placement using 3DPG was more likely to provide acceptable pin placement (p |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1111/vsu.14042 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_3040391608</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2876637928</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4212-36681f2a13555a7bfafe17a0dd7c2334a68e4fc30cdb8d20c28d5b82cb39bb663</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkc1qFTEUx4Mo9lpd-AIScFMX0-ZrMpOllPoBBRdacRcyyYk3ZSYZk5lb785H8Bl9ElNvdSGIZ3M48Ds_zuGP0FNKTmmts11ZT6kggt1DG9py1qiWfLqPNoRK2nCh1BF6VMo1IUQJwR-iI971jFFKNmh_8RXvwi5hm6bZ5FBSxMnjOUQ8j8bCBHHBN2HZ4tksoQ4_vn0vM9jgg8Uuh3HEn9fgoOCUsc8AWxMdXsBuY_iyAq4ea2KIUJszO8h1rVQ7lMfogTdjgSd3_Rhdvbr4cP6muXz3-u35y8vGCkZZw6XsqWeG8rZtTTd444F2hjjXWca5MLIH4S0n1g29Y8Sy3rVDz-zA1TBIyY_RycE751QvKoueQrEwjiZCWovmRBCuqCT9f1HWd1XYKXaLPv8LvU5rjvURzRSTnCpJRaVeHCibUykZvJ5zmEzea0r0bXS6Rqd_RVfZZ3fGdZjA_SF_Z1WBswNwE0bY_9ukP76_Oih_Av4mpNc</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2926319614</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Ex vivo comparison of pin placement with patient‐specific drill guides or freehand technique in canine cadaveric spines</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Guevara, Francisco ; Foss, Kari D. ; Harper, Tisha A. M. ; Moran, Clara A. ; Hague, Devon W. ; Hamel, Philip E. S. ; Schaeffer, David J. ; McCoy, Annette M.</creator><creatorcontrib>Guevara, Francisco ; Foss, Kari D. ; Harper, Tisha A. M. ; Moran, Clara A. ; Hague, Devon W. ; Hamel, Philip E. S. ; Schaeffer, David J. ; McCoy, Annette M.</creatorcontrib><description>Objective
To compare vertebral implant placement in the canine thoracolumbar spine between 3D‐printed patient‐specific drill guides (3DPG) and the conventional freehand technique (FH).
Study design
Ex vivo study.
Animals
Cadaveric canine spines (n = 24).
Methods
Implant trajectories were established for the left and right sides of the T10 through L6 vertebrae based on computed tomography (CT) imaging. Customized drill guides were created for each vertebra of interest. Each cadaver was randomly assigned to one of six veterinarians with varying levels of experience placing vertebral implants. Vertebrae were randomly assigned a surgical order and technique (3DPG or FH) for both sides. Postoperative CT images were acquired. A single, blinded observer assessed pin placement using a modified Zdichavsky classification.
Results
A total of 480 implants were placed in 240 vertebrae. Three sites were excluded from the analysis; therefore, a total of 238 implants were evaluated using the FH technique and 239 implants using 3DPG. When evaluating implant placement, 152/239 (63.6%) of 3DPG implants were considered to have an acceptable placement in comparison with 115/248 (48.32%) with FH. Overall, pin placement using 3DPG was more likely to provide acceptable pin placement (p < .001) in comparison with the FH technique for surgeons at all levels of experience.
Conclusion
The use of 3DPG was shown to be better than the conventional freehand technique regarding acceptable placement of implants in the thoracolumbar spine of canine cadavers.
Clinical significance
Utilizing 3DPG can be considered better than the traditional FH technique when placing implants in the canine thoracolumbar spine.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0161-3499</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1532-950X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/vsu.14042</identifier><identifier>PMID: 37822110</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Hoboken, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc</publisher><subject>Animals ; Cadaver ; Cadavers ; Computed tomography ; Dog Diseases - surgery ; Dogs ; Evaluation ; Humans ; Image acquisition ; Implants ; Spinal Fusion - methods ; Spinal Fusion - veterinary ; Spine ; surgery ; Surgery, Computer-Assisted - veterinary ; Three dimensional printing ; Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods ; Tomography, X-Ray Computed - veterinary ; Transplants & implants ; Vertebrae</subject><ispartof>Veterinary surgery, 2024-02, Vol.53 (2), p.254-263</ispartof><rights>2023 The Authors. published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American College of Veterinary Surgeons.</rights><rights>2023 The Authors. Veterinary Surgery published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American College of Veterinary Surgeons.</rights><rights>2023. This article is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4212-36681f2a13555a7bfafe17a0dd7c2334a68e4fc30cdb8d20c28d5b82cb39bb663</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4212-36681f2a13555a7bfafe17a0dd7c2334a68e4fc30cdb8d20c28d5b82cb39bb663</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-9540-3093 ; 0000-0003-4088-6902 ; 0000-0003-4511-272X ; 0000-0002-6040-052X</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fvsu.14042$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fvsu.14042$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37822110$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Guevara, Francisco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Foss, Kari D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Harper, Tisha A. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moran, Clara A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hague, Devon W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hamel, Philip E. S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schaeffer, David J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McCoy, Annette M.</creatorcontrib><title>Ex vivo comparison of pin placement with patient‐specific drill guides or freehand technique in canine cadaveric spines</title><title>Veterinary surgery</title><addtitle>Vet Surg</addtitle><description>Objective
To compare vertebral implant placement in the canine thoracolumbar spine between 3D‐printed patient‐specific drill guides (3DPG) and the conventional freehand technique (FH).
Study design
Ex vivo study.
Animals
Cadaveric canine spines (n = 24).
Methods
Implant trajectories were established for the left and right sides of the T10 through L6 vertebrae based on computed tomography (CT) imaging. Customized drill guides were created for each vertebra of interest. Each cadaver was randomly assigned to one of six veterinarians with varying levels of experience placing vertebral implants. Vertebrae were randomly assigned a surgical order and technique (3DPG or FH) for both sides. Postoperative CT images were acquired. A single, blinded observer assessed pin placement using a modified Zdichavsky classification.
Results
A total of 480 implants were placed in 240 vertebrae. Three sites were excluded from the analysis; therefore, a total of 238 implants were evaluated using the FH technique and 239 implants using 3DPG. When evaluating implant placement, 152/239 (63.6%) of 3DPG implants were considered to have an acceptable placement in comparison with 115/248 (48.32%) with FH. Overall, pin placement using 3DPG was more likely to provide acceptable pin placement (p < .001) in comparison with the FH technique for surgeons at all levels of experience.
Conclusion
The use of 3DPG was shown to be better than the conventional freehand technique regarding acceptable placement of implants in the thoracolumbar spine of canine cadavers.
Clinical significance
Utilizing 3DPG can be considered better than the traditional FH technique when placing implants in the canine thoracolumbar spine.</description><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Cadaver</subject><subject>Cadavers</subject><subject>Computed tomography</subject><subject>Dog Diseases - surgery</subject><subject>Dogs</subject><subject>Evaluation</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Image acquisition</subject><subject>Implants</subject><subject>Spinal Fusion - methods</subject><subject>Spinal Fusion - veterinary</subject><subject>Spine</subject><subject>surgery</subject><subject>Surgery, Computer-Assisted - veterinary</subject><subject>Three dimensional printing</subject><subject>Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods</subject><subject>Tomography, X-Ray Computed - veterinary</subject><subject>Transplants & implants</subject><subject>Vertebrae</subject><issn>0161-3499</issn><issn>1532-950X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkc1qFTEUx4Mo9lpd-AIScFMX0-ZrMpOllPoBBRdacRcyyYk3ZSYZk5lb785H8Bl9ElNvdSGIZ3M48Ds_zuGP0FNKTmmts11ZT6kggt1DG9py1qiWfLqPNoRK2nCh1BF6VMo1IUQJwR-iI971jFFKNmh_8RXvwi5hm6bZ5FBSxMnjOUQ8j8bCBHHBN2HZ4tksoQ4_vn0vM9jgg8Uuh3HEn9fgoOCUsc8AWxMdXsBuY_iyAq4ea2KIUJszO8h1rVQ7lMfogTdjgSd3_Rhdvbr4cP6muXz3-u35y8vGCkZZw6XsqWeG8rZtTTd444F2hjjXWca5MLIH4S0n1g29Y8Sy3rVDz-zA1TBIyY_RycE751QvKoueQrEwjiZCWovmRBCuqCT9f1HWd1XYKXaLPv8LvU5rjvURzRSTnCpJRaVeHCibUykZvJ5zmEzea0r0bXS6Rqd_RVfZZ3fGdZjA_SF_Z1WBswNwE0bY_9ukP76_Oih_Av4mpNc</recordid><startdate>202402</startdate><enddate>202402</enddate><creator>Guevara, Francisco</creator><creator>Foss, Kari D.</creator><creator>Harper, Tisha A. M.</creator><creator>Moran, Clara A.</creator><creator>Hague, Devon W.</creator><creator>Hamel, Philip E. S.</creator><creator>Schaeffer, David J.</creator><creator>McCoy, Annette M.</creator><general>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</general><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>M7Z</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>7S9</scope><scope>L.6</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9540-3093</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4088-6902</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4511-272X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6040-052X</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202402</creationdate><title>Ex vivo comparison of pin placement with patient‐specific drill guides or freehand technique in canine cadaveric spines</title><author>Guevara, Francisco ; Foss, Kari D. ; Harper, Tisha A. M. ; Moran, Clara A. ; Hague, Devon W. ; Hamel, Philip E. S. ; Schaeffer, David J. ; McCoy, Annette M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4212-36681f2a13555a7bfafe17a0dd7c2334a68e4fc30cdb8d20c28d5b82cb39bb663</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Cadaver</topic><topic>Cadavers</topic><topic>Computed tomography</topic><topic>Dog Diseases - surgery</topic><topic>Dogs</topic><topic>Evaluation</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Image acquisition</topic><topic>Implants</topic><topic>Spinal Fusion - methods</topic><topic>Spinal Fusion - veterinary</topic><topic>Spine</topic><topic>surgery</topic><topic>Surgery, Computer-Assisted - veterinary</topic><topic>Three dimensional printing</topic><topic>Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods</topic><topic>Tomography, X-Ray Computed - veterinary</topic><topic>Transplants & implants</topic><topic>Vertebrae</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Guevara, Francisco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Foss, Kari D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Harper, Tisha A. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moran, Clara A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hague, Devon W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hamel, Philip E. S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schaeffer, David J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McCoy, Annette M.</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library Open Access</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Biochemistry Abstracts 1</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>AGRICOLA</collection><collection>AGRICOLA - Academic</collection><jtitle>Veterinary surgery</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Guevara, Francisco</au><au>Foss, Kari D.</au><au>Harper, Tisha A. M.</au><au>Moran, Clara A.</au><au>Hague, Devon W.</au><au>Hamel, Philip E. S.</au><au>Schaeffer, David J.</au><au>McCoy, Annette M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Ex vivo comparison of pin placement with patient‐specific drill guides or freehand technique in canine cadaveric spines</atitle><jtitle>Veterinary surgery</jtitle><addtitle>Vet Surg</addtitle><date>2024-02</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>53</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>254</spage><epage>263</epage><pages>254-263</pages><issn>0161-3499</issn><eissn>1532-950X</eissn><abstract>Objective
To compare vertebral implant placement in the canine thoracolumbar spine between 3D‐printed patient‐specific drill guides (3DPG) and the conventional freehand technique (FH).
Study design
Ex vivo study.
Animals
Cadaveric canine spines (n = 24).
Methods
Implant trajectories were established for the left and right sides of the T10 through L6 vertebrae based on computed tomography (CT) imaging. Customized drill guides were created for each vertebra of interest. Each cadaver was randomly assigned to one of six veterinarians with varying levels of experience placing vertebral implants. Vertebrae were randomly assigned a surgical order and technique (3DPG or FH) for both sides. Postoperative CT images were acquired. A single, blinded observer assessed pin placement using a modified Zdichavsky classification.
Results
A total of 480 implants were placed in 240 vertebrae. Three sites were excluded from the analysis; therefore, a total of 238 implants were evaluated using the FH technique and 239 implants using 3DPG. When evaluating implant placement, 152/239 (63.6%) of 3DPG implants were considered to have an acceptable placement in comparison with 115/248 (48.32%) with FH. Overall, pin placement using 3DPG was more likely to provide acceptable pin placement (p < .001) in comparison with the FH technique for surgeons at all levels of experience.
Conclusion
The use of 3DPG was shown to be better than the conventional freehand technique regarding acceptable placement of implants in the thoracolumbar spine of canine cadavers.
Clinical significance
Utilizing 3DPG can be considered better than the traditional FH technique when placing implants in the canine thoracolumbar spine.</abstract><cop>Hoboken, USA</cop><pub>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</pub><pmid>37822110</pmid><doi>10.1111/vsu.14042</doi><tpages>10</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9540-3093</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4088-6902</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4511-272X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6040-052X</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0161-3499 |
| ispartof | Veterinary surgery, 2024-02, Vol.53 (2), p.254-263 |
| issn | 0161-3499 1532-950X |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_3040391608 |
| source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
| subjects | Animals Cadaver Cadavers Computed tomography Dog Diseases - surgery Dogs Evaluation Humans Image acquisition Implants Spinal Fusion - methods Spinal Fusion - veterinary Spine surgery Surgery, Computer-Assisted - veterinary Three dimensional printing Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods Tomography, X-Ray Computed - veterinary Transplants & implants Vertebrae |
| title | Ex vivo comparison of pin placement with patient‐specific drill guides or freehand technique in canine cadaveric spines |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-10T21%3A25%3A50IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Ex%20vivo%20comparison%20of%20pin%20placement%20with%20patient%E2%80%90specific%20drill%20guides%20or%20freehand%20technique%20in%20canine%20cadaveric%20spines&rft.jtitle=Veterinary%20surgery&rft.au=Guevara,%20Francisco&rft.date=2024-02&rft.volume=53&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=254&rft.epage=263&rft.pages=254-263&rft.issn=0161-3499&rft.eissn=1532-950X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/vsu.14042&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2876637928%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2926319614&rft_id=info:pmid/37822110&rfr_iscdi=true |