Template guided versus freehand rod bending in spinal deformity surgery: a feasibility study.

L Bättig¹, A R Dixon², E Molero Hidalgo², N Hejrati¹, F C Stengel¹, F Corr¹, T Schöfl³, L Feuerstein³, N A Pogonitz⁴, S Singh⁵, B Martens³, M N Stienen¹, Stefan Motov⁶

¹Neurosurgery Department, Spine Center HOCH Health Ostschweiz, Cantonal Hospital of St. Gallen, Rorschacher Str. 95, 9007, St. Gallen, Switzerland.

²Brainlab SE, Munich, Germany.

³Orthopedics and Traumatology Department, Spine Center HOCH Health Ostschweiz, Cantonal Hospital of St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland.

⁴Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, USA.

⁵Drexel University College of Medicine, Philadelphia, USA.

⁶Neurosurgery Department, Spine Center HOCH Health Ostschweiz, Cantonal Hospital of St. Gallen, Rorschacher Str. 95, 9007, St. Gallen, Switzerland. Stefan.motov@h-och.ch.

PubMed DOI

Abstract

Spinal deformity correction relies on osteotomies and precisely contoured rods, which are critical for restoring sagittal alignment. Inaccurate rod bending may compromise alignment and increase the risk of junctional failure. This feasibility study compares the accuracy of template-guided versus freehand rod contouring in a simulated environment. Using SurgiMap® software, 12 double-curved rods wer…

Create a free account to keep reading

Free members get 10 full research views every month across publications, clinical trials, FDA clearances, adverse events, and NIH grants. No credit card required.

Create Free Account Sign In

Want unlimited research access? See Pro plans

Data Accuracy Notice: Research intelligence on Health AI Central is aggregated from public sources (PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, FDA, NIH, CMS, and others) and refreshed nightly. Classifications and derived metrics are produced by automated methods described in our Methodology. We recommend verifying critical data points against the primary sources before making decisions.