Accuracy of pin placement in the canine thoracolumbar spine using a free‐hand probing technique versus 3D‐printed patient‐specific drill guides: An ex‐vivo study

Abstract

AbstractObjectiveTo compare pin placement accuracy, intraoperative technique deviations, and duration of pin placement for pins placed by free‐hand probing (FHP) or 3D‐printed drill guide (3DPG) technique.Sample populationFour greyhound cadavers.MethodsComputed tomography (CT) examinations from T6‐sacrum were obtained for determination of optimal pin placement and 3DPG creation. Two 3.2/2.4‐mm positive profile pins were inserted per vertebra, one left and one right from T7–L7 (FHP [n = 56]; 3DPG [n = 56]) by one surgeon and removed for repeat CT. Duration of pin placement and intraoperative deviations (unanticipated deviations from planned technique) were recorded. Pin tracts were graded by two blinded observers using modified Zdichavsky classification. Descriptive statistics were used.ResultsA total of 54/56 pins placed with 3DPGs were assigned grade I (optimal placement) compared with 49/56 pins using the FHP technique. A total of 2/56 pins placed with 3DPGs and 3/56 pins using the FHP technique were assigned grade IIa (partial medial violation). A total of 4/56 pins placed using the FHP technique were assigned grade IIIa (partial lateral violation). No pins were assigned grade IIb (full medial violation). Intraoperative technique deviations occurred with 6/56 pins placed using the FHP technique and no pins with 3DPGs. Overall, pins were placed faster (mean ± SD 2.6 [1.3] vs. 4.5 [1.8] min) with 3DPGs.ConclusionsBoth techniques were accurate for placement of spinal fixation pins. The 3DPG technique may decrease intraoperative deviations and duration of pin placement.Clinical relevanceBoth techniques allow accurate pin placement in the canine thoracolumbar spine. The FHP technique requires specific training and has learning curve, whereas 3DPG technique requires specific software and 3D printers.