ArticleBrain & spine2025
3D-printed guide template for cervical stabilization surgery: A case report.
Article in Brain & spine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Emerging advances in spinal cord injury: An introductory overview.Brain & spine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Cervical spine injuries are a growing global public health concern. Management depends on injury severity, with severe cases requiring surgical decompression and stabilization. Emerging technologies such as 3D-printed patient-specific templates offer enhanced accuracy and safety in pedicle screw placement compared to traditional freehand techniques. Research question: Can 3D-printed patient-specific guide templates improve the safety, efficiency, and outcomes of cervical spine fusion procedures compared to conventional techniques? Case report: A 62-year-old male with a cervical spinal injury underwent emergency decompression at an external facility. Subsequent imaging revealed iatrogenic instability due to multi-level laminectomies (C3-C6). Preoperative CT data were processed using software (Mimics v14, MeshMixer) to design patient-specific templates, printed with a 3D Ultimaker 2 printer. These sterilized templates were used intraoperatively for navigation, aiding in transpedicular screw placement at C2, C7, and T1 levels, with lateral mass screws placed for C3-C6 using a freehand technique. Results: Intraoperative fluoroscopy confirmed accurate screw placement with no vertebral artery injury or malposition. Postoperative CT validated precise alignment, and no hematoma or complications were observed. The use of 3D templates reduced operative time and radiation exposure compared to traditional methods. Discussion: 3D-printed templates offer a cost-effective and accessible alternative to robotic systems, enhancing precision and minimizing complications. Literature supports their safety, accuracy, and potential to reduce operative time, blood loss, and radiation exposure. Conclusion: 3D-printed templates represent an effective and innovative tool for improving cervical spine surgery outcomes. Future advancements in 3D-printing technologies could further optimize spinal stabilization and fusion procedures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.