DEVELOPING A SPINE SURGERY TRAINING TOOL: MEASURING FORCES IN THE PEDICLE
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Summary Statement Incorrect pedicle screw placement can lead to neurological complications. Practice outside the operating room on realistic bone models, with force feedback, could improve safety. Pedicle forces in cadaveric specimens are reported, to support development of a training tool for residents. Introduction Inserting screws into the vertebral pedicles is a challenging step in spinal fusion and scoliosis surgeries. Errors in placement can lead to neurological complications and poor mechanical fixation. The more experienced the surgeon, the better the accuracy of the screw placement. A physical training system would provide orthopaedic residents with the feel of performing pedicle cannulation before operating on a patient. The proposed system consists of realistic bone models mimicking the geometry and material properties of typical patients, coupled with a force feedback probe. The purpose of the present study was to determine the forces encountered during pedicle probing to aid in the development of this training system. Methods We performed two separate investigations. In the first study, 15 participants (9 expert surgeons, 3 fellows, 3 residents) were asked to press a standard pedicle awl three times onto a mechanical scale, blinded to the force, demonstrating what force they would apply during safe pedicle cannulation and during unsafe cortical breach. In the second study, three experienced surgeons used a standard pedicle awl fitted with a one-degree of freedom load cell to probe selected thoracolumbar vertebrae of eight cadaveric specimens to measure the forces required during pedicle cannulation and deliberate breaching, in randomised order. A total of 42 pedicles were tested. Results Both studies had wide variations in the results, but were in general agreement. Cannulation (safe) forces averaged approximately 90 N (20 lb) whereas breach (unsafe) forces averaged approximately 135–155 N (30–35 lb). The lowest average forces in the cadaveric study were for pedicle cannulation, averaging 86 N (range, 23–125 N), which was significantly lower (p 0.1). Cannulation forces were on average 59% of the breach forces (range, 19–84%) or conversely, breach forces were 70% higher than cannulation forces. Discussion To our knowledge, axial force data have not previously been reported for pedicle cannulation and breaching. A large range of forces was measured, as is experienced clinically. Additional testing is planned with a six-degree-of-freedom load cell to determine all of the forces and moments involved in cannulation and breaching throughout the thoracolumbar spine. These results will inform the development of a realistic bone model as well as a breach prediction algorithm for a physical training system for spine surgery. The opportunity to learn and practice outside of the operating room, including learning from deliberate mistakes, should increase the confidence and comprehension of residents performing the procedure, enhance patient safety, reduce surgical time, and allow faster progression of learning inside the operating room.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».