脊柱导航:一种公认的护理标准?

J Schröder, H Wassmann
{"title":"脊柱导航:一种公认的护理标准?","authors":"J Schröder,&nbsp;H Wassmann","doi":"10.1055/s-2006-942146","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>In contrast to cranial neuro-navigation, which has been accepted as a routine intraoperative tool, there is still much debate about spinal navigation as an aid for the insertion of pedicle screws. Opinions range from \"not useful at all\" to \"malpractice if not using it\". The aim of our investigation was to obtain data about the availability of spinal navigation and compile a common opinion among German neurosurgeons about its usefulness. The current literature is reviewed.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We present the results of a survey of the Commission for Technical Standards of the German Neurosurgical Society about the use of intraoperative computerised spinal navigation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 128 neurosurgical departments surveyed, 107 (84 %) responded. 57 (53 %) of the responders are equipped with a spinal navigation device, 12 (11 %) use a spinal navigation equipment together with other departments, and 38 (36 %) do not have spinal navigation. Of the departments not equipped with spinal navigation, 58 % would like to have it but 42 % would not. 52 (49 %) responders held the opinion that spinal navigation enhances safety when introducing pedicle screws; while 40 (37 %) answered in the negative, and 15 (14 %) were not sure. Of the responders, 101 (94 %) disagreed with the statement that spinal navigation should be mandatory for pedicle screw placement, 3 (3 %) agreed, and 3 (3 %) were not sure. Of the responders, 105 (98 %) rejected the statement that insertion of pedicle screws without navigation is medical malpractice, 1 (1 %) upheld the statement, and 1 (1 %) was not sure.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>It is still not generally considered common practice to use spinal navigation as an aid for the implantation of pedicle screws. Most pedicle screws are still inserted conventionally. Although nearly 50 % of German neurosurgeons believe that spinal navigation could enhance safety when placing pedicle screws, they clearly reject efforts to make spinal navigation mandatory. With only one exception, the German neurosurgical community unanimously rejects the idea that placing pedicle screws without spinal navigation is medical malpractice.</p>","PeriodicalId":50708,"journal":{"name":"Zentralblatt Fur Neurochirurgie","volume":"67 3","pages":"123-8"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1055/s-2006-942146","citationCount":"12","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Spinal navigation: an accepted standard of care?\",\"authors\":\"J Schröder,&nbsp;H Wassmann\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/s-2006-942146\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>In contrast to cranial neuro-navigation, which has been accepted as a routine intraoperative tool, there is still much debate about spinal navigation as an aid for the insertion of pedicle screws. Opinions range from \\\"not useful at all\\\" to \\\"malpractice if not using it\\\". The aim of our investigation was to obtain data about the availability of spinal navigation and compile a common opinion among German neurosurgeons about its usefulness. The current literature is reviewed.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We present the results of a survey of the Commission for Technical Standards of the German Neurosurgical Society about the use of intraoperative computerised spinal navigation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 128 neurosurgical departments surveyed, 107 (84 %) responded. 57 (53 %) of the responders are equipped with a spinal navigation device, 12 (11 %) use a spinal navigation equipment together with other departments, and 38 (36 %) do not have spinal navigation. Of the departments not equipped with spinal navigation, 58 % would like to have it but 42 % would not. 52 (49 %) responders held the opinion that spinal navigation enhances safety when introducing pedicle screws; while 40 (37 %) answered in the negative, and 15 (14 %) were not sure. Of the responders, 101 (94 %) disagreed with the statement that spinal navigation should be mandatory for pedicle screw placement, 3 (3 %) agreed, and 3 (3 %) were not sure. Of the responders, 105 (98 %) rejected the statement that insertion of pedicle screws without navigation is medical malpractice, 1 (1 %) upheld the statement, and 1 (1 %) was not sure.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>It is still not generally considered common practice to use spinal navigation as an aid for the implantation of pedicle screws. Most pedicle screws are still inserted conventionally. Although nearly 50 % of German neurosurgeons believe that spinal navigation could enhance safety when placing pedicle screws, they clearly reject efforts to make spinal navigation mandatory. With only one exception, the German neurosurgical community unanimously rejects the idea that placing pedicle screws without spinal navigation is medical malpractice.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50708,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Zentralblatt Fur Neurochirurgie\",\"volume\":\"67 3\",\"pages\":\"123-8\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2006-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1055/s-2006-942146\",\"citationCount\":\"12\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Zentralblatt Fur Neurochirurgie\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2006-942146\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zentralblatt Fur Neurochirurgie","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2006-942146","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

摘要

目的:与颅神经导航作为常规术中工具相比,脊柱导航作为椎弓根螺钉置入的辅助工具仍有很多争论。人们的意见不一,从“根本没用”到“不使用就玩忽职守”。我们调查的目的是获得关于脊柱导航的可用性的数据,并在德国神经外科医生中收集关于其有用性的共同意见。对目前的文献进行了综述。方法:我们介绍了德国神经外科学会技术标准委员会关于术中计算机脊柱导航使用的调查结果。结果:在调查的128个神经外科科室中,有107个(84%)做出了回应。57个(53%)应答者配备了脊柱导航设备,12个(11%)与其他部门一起使用脊柱导航设备,38个(36%)没有脊柱导航。在没有配备脊柱导航系统的科室中,58%的科室希望安装,42%的科室不希望安装。52例(49%)应答者认为脊柱导航可提高椎弓根螺钉置入的安全性;40人(37%)表示否定,15人(14%)表示不确定。在应答者中,101人(94%)不同意在椎弓根螺钉置入时必须进行脊柱导航,3人(3%)同意,3人(3%)不确定。在应答者中,105人(98%)拒绝“无导航置入椎弓根螺钉是医疗事故”的说法,1人(1%)支持这一说法,1人(1%)不确定。结论:采用脊柱导航辅助椎弓根螺钉植入仍不普遍。大多数椎弓根螺钉仍按常规置入。尽管近50%的德国神经外科医生认为脊柱导航可以提高放置椎弓根螺钉时的安全性,但他们明确反对强制脊柱导航的努力。只有一个例外,德国神经外科团体一致反对在没有脊柱导航的情况下放置椎弓根螺钉是医疗事故的观点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Spinal navigation: an accepted standard of care?

Objective: In contrast to cranial neuro-navigation, which has been accepted as a routine intraoperative tool, there is still much debate about spinal navigation as an aid for the insertion of pedicle screws. Opinions range from "not useful at all" to "malpractice if not using it". The aim of our investigation was to obtain data about the availability of spinal navigation and compile a common opinion among German neurosurgeons about its usefulness. The current literature is reviewed.

Methods: We present the results of a survey of the Commission for Technical Standards of the German Neurosurgical Society about the use of intraoperative computerised spinal navigation.

Results: Of the 128 neurosurgical departments surveyed, 107 (84 %) responded. 57 (53 %) of the responders are equipped with a spinal navigation device, 12 (11 %) use a spinal navigation equipment together with other departments, and 38 (36 %) do not have spinal navigation. Of the departments not equipped with spinal navigation, 58 % would like to have it but 42 % would not. 52 (49 %) responders held the opinion that spinal navigation enhances safety when introducing pedicle screws; while 40 (37 %) answered in the negative, and 15 (14 %) were not sure. Of the responders, 101 (94 %) disagreed with the statement that spinal navigation should be mandatory for pedicle screw placement, 3 (3 %) agreed, and 3 (3 %) were not sure. Of the responders, 105 (98 %) rejected the statement that insertion of pedicle screws without navigation is medical malpractice, 1 (1 %) upheld the statement, and 1 (1 %) was not sure.

Conclusion: It is still not generally considered common practice to use spinal navigation as an aid for the implantation of pedicle screws. Most pedicle screws are still inserted conventionally. Although nearly 50 % of German neurosurgeons believe that spinal navigation could enhance safety when placing pedicle screws, they clearly reject efforts to make spinal navigation mandatory. With only one exception, the German neurosurgical community unanimously rejects the idea that placing pedicle screws without spinal navigation is medical malpractice.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Zentralblatt Fur Neurochirurgie
Zentralblatt Fur Neurochirurgie 医学-神经科学
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信