Ball Tip Feeler vs. Depth Gauge: Detection of Bony Pedicle Defects Before Pedicle Screw Insertion.

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
In vivo Pub Date : 2025-03-01 DOI:10.21873/invivo.13876
Ulf Brunnemer, Sabine Roth, Christian W Müller, Tobias Hüfner, Sebastian Decker
{"title":"Ball Tip Feeler <i>vs.</i> Depth Gauge: Detection of Bony Pedicle Defects Before Pedicle Screw Insertion.","authors":"Ulf Brunnemer, Sabine Roth, Christian W Müller, Tobias Hüfner, Sebastian Decker","doi":"10.21873/invivo.13876","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background/aim: </strong>The objective of this study was to investigate whether the detection rates of pedicle breaches depended on the surgeon's experience level and whether different instruments resulted in varied palpation quality.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Experienced surgeons (ES) (n=8) and inexperienced surgeons (IS) (n=10) were compared. The study was performed using a sawbone model of the spine. Pedicle defects were created at various positions and levels. Participants detected and located the bony defects using a depth gauge and a straight ball tip feeler. After the first measurement, the IS group underwent training focused on identifying bone defects. The experiment was repeated after three weeks under identical conditions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A significant difference was found between ES and IS in the time required to palpate pedicles and bony defects using the ball tip feeler during the first measurement (297.2±114.4 s <i>vs.</i> 202.1±77.9 s; <i>p</i>=0.05). However, after training and during the second measurement three weeks later, these differences were no longer observed (223.7±65.1 s <i>vs.</i> 212.2±73.6 s; <i>p</i>=0.73). Notably, no significant differences were found in the accuracy in detecting bony pedicle defects between the two groups, regardless of the device used. Furthermore, no improvement was found in the IS group after training, regardless of the device used.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>ES and IS accurately detected pedicle breaches without significant differences. Training did not affect detection rates between the groups, and the choice of device did not affect the accuracy of pedicle breach detection.</p>","PeriodicalId":13364,"journal":{"name":"In vivo","volume":"39 2","pages":"724-731"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11884447/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"In vivo","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21873/invivo.13876","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background/aim: The objective of this study was to investigate whether the detection rates of pedicle breaches depended on the surgeon's experience level and whether different instruments resulted in varied palpation quality.

Materials and methods: Experienced surgeons (ES) (n=8) and inexperienced surgeons (IS) (n=10) were compared. The study was performed using a sawbone model of the spine. Pedicle defects were created at various positions and levels. Participants detected and located the bony defects using a depth gauge and a straight ball tip feeler. After the first measurement, the IS group underwent training focused on identifying bone defects. The experiment was repeated after three weeks under identical conditions.

Results: A significant difference was found between ES and IS in the time required to palpate pedicles and bony defects using the ball tip feeler during the first measurement (297.2±114.4 s vs. 202.1±77.9 s; p=0.05). However, after training and during the second measurement three weeks later, these differences were no longer observed (223.7±65.1 s vs. 212.2±73.6 s; p=0.73). Notably, no significant differences were found in the accuracy in detecting bony pedicle defects between the two groups, regardless of the device used. Furthermore, no improvement was found in the IS group after training, regardless of the device used.

Conclusion: ES and IS accurately detected pedicle breaches without significant differences. Training did not affect detection rates between the groups, and the choice of device did not affect the accuracy of pedicle breach detection.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
In vivo
In vivo 医学-医学:研究与实验
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
330
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: IN VIVO is an international peer-reviewed journal designed to bring together original high quality works and reviews on experimental and clinical biomedical research within the frames of physiology, pathology and disease management. The topics of IN VIVO include: 1. Experimental development and application of new diagnostic and therapeutic procedures; 2. Pharmacological and toxicological evaluation of new drugs, drug combinations and drug delivery systems; 3. Clinical trials; 4. Development and characterization of models of biomedical research; 5. Cancer diagnosis and treatment; 6. Immunotherapy and vaccines; 7. Radiotherapy, Imaging; 8. Tissue engineering, Regenerative medicine; 9. Carcinogenesis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信