Ulf Brunnemer, Sabine Roth, Christian W Müller, Tobias Hüfner, Sebastian Decker
{"title":"球头探测仪与深度计:在椎弓根螺钉插入前检测骨椎弓根缺陷。","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":"{\"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}","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
摘要
背景/目的:本研究的目的是探讨椎弓根断裂的检出率是否取决于外科医生的经验水平,以及不同的器械是否会导致不同的触诊质量。材料和方法:比较经验丰富的外科医生(ES) (n=8)和经验不足的外科医生(IS) (n=10)。该研究使用脊柱的锯骨模型进行。椎弓根缺损发生在不同的位置和水平。参与者使用深度计和直球尖端探针检测和定位骨缺损。在第一次测量后,IS组接受了识别骨缺陷的培训。三周后,在相同的条件下重复了这个实验。结果:ES和IS在第一次测量时使用球尖触诊椎弓根和骨缺损所需的时间上有显著差异(297.2±114.4 s vs 202.1±77.9 s;p = 0.05)。然而,在训练后和三周后的第二次测量中,这些差异不再被观察到(223.7±65.1秒vs 212.2±73.6秒;p = 0.73)。值得注意的是,无论使用何种设备,两组在检测骨蒂缺损的准确性方面没有显著差异。此外,无论使用何种设备,训练后IS组均未发现改善。结论:ES与IS能准确检测椎弓根断裂,差异无统计学意义。训练不影响两组间的检出率,器械的选择不影响椎弓根缺口检测的准确性。
Ball Tip Feeler vs. Depth Gauge: Detection of Bony Pedicle Defects Before Pedicle Screw Insertion.
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.
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.