| Literature DB >> 36225218 |
Guoqi Niu1,2, Jiawei Cheng1,2, Lutan Liu1,2, Chao Li1,2, Gong Zhou1,2, Hui Chen1,2, Tao Liu1,2, Hu Nie1,2, Zheng Sun1,2, Weili Jiang1,2, Qiankun Zhou1,2, Baoyin Zhao1,2, Jun Zhu1,2, Ruochen Yu1,2, Yalong Guo1,2, Yi Yang1,2, Jianzhong Bai1,2.
Abstract
Objective: This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of freehand atlantoaxial pedicle screws against custom 3D printed navigation template screws in the treatment of upper cervical fractures.Entities:
Keywords: 3D printing; guide template; pedicle screw; upper cervical deformity; upper cervical fractures
Year: 2022 PMID: 36225218 PMCID: PMC9549244 DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.932296
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Surg ISSN: 2296-875X
Figure 1(A–E) Virtual reduction of the fracture fragments and individualized 3D printed navigation template were prepared according to the angle of screw placement.
Figure 2(A–D) 1:1 printing of the vertebral body model and preoperative simulation.
Figure 3Operation process: (A) the matching degree of the guide plate was tested again before screwing; (B) the corresponding segment guide template was attached after exposure of atlantoaxial vertebrae; (C) the hole was drilled with Kirschner wire under the protective sleeve, and tap after the four walls are complete; (D) intraoperative fluoroscopy was used to verify the accuracy of screw placement.
Figure 4(A–D) Evaluation criteria for screw implantation quality.
Baseline characteristics of patients.
| Group A | Group B | |
|---|---|---|
| Age (year) | 47.8 ± 11.4 | 42.5 ± 16.7 |
| Gender, no (%) | ||
| Female | 3 (25) | 2 (18) |
| Male | 9 (75) | 9 (82) |
| Cause of injury, no (%) | ||
| Traffic accident | 6 (50) | 5 (45.5) |
| Fall from height | 3 (25) | 1 (9) |
| Fall on the ground | 3 (25) | 5 (45.5) |
| Symptoms, no (%) | ||
| Neck pain | 12 (100) | 11 (100) |
| Dysphagia | 5 (42) | 4 (36) |
| Paresthesia/weakness | 9 (75) | 8 (73) |
Figure 5(A–G) Comparison of operation time, blood loss, fluoroscopy times, excellent and good rate, VAS, ASIA, JOA, Blood loss, and the rate of excellent or good between the two groups.
Figure 6Postoperative x-ray and CT imaging data.