Find in Library

Abstract Background To compare the safety and accuracy of the 3D-printed operation guide template technique and the free-hand technique in the placement of the S2-alar-iliac (S2AI) screw. Methods We conducted a retrospective analysis of 47 patients undergoing S2AI screw placement in our hospital, divided into the 3D-printed operation guide template group and the free-hand screw placement group. The duration of single S2AI screw placement was documented in all patients. A postoperative CT scan was performed to assess screw placement effectiveness according to the distance from the screw tip to the breach of the cortical bone wall. Results In total, 42 screws were placed in the guide template group, with an average screw placement duration of 151.6 ± 44.8 s. Screw placement grading was as follows: 40 screws in grade 0, two in grade 1, and none in grades 2 and 3. This grading resulted in excellent and good rates of 95.2% and 100%, respectively. In total, 52 screws were placed in the free-hand group, with an average screw placement duration of 138.3 ± 45.9 s. Screw placement grading was as follows: 42 screws in grade 0, seven in grade 1, three in grade 2, and none in grade 3. This grading resulted in excellent, good and acceptable rates 80.8%, 94.2% and 100%, respectively. Screw placement duration did not significantly differ between the groups (p > 0.05). The excellent rate of screw placement was greater in the guide template group than in the free-hand group (p < 0.05), but the good and acceptable rates did not significantly differ between the two groups (p > 0.05). Conclusion Both techniques can be applied to S2AI screw placement. The 3D-printed guide technique is superior to the free-hand technique in terms of safety and accuracy.