← Articles

Mullins et al: 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
Veterinary Surgery 5, 2023

🔍 Key Findings

  • Both free-hand probing (FHP) and 3D-printed guides (3DPG) enabled accurate spinal pin placement, with 87.5% vs 96.4% of pins graded as optimal (Grade I).
  • 3DPGs had fewer intraoperative deviations (0/56 pins) compared to 6/56 with the FHP technique.
  • No pins using either method fully breached the medial vertebral canal (Grade IIb) — a critical safety outcome.
  • Pins placed using 3DPGs required less time overall (mean 2.6 min) than FHP (mean 4.5 min).
  • FHP required specific experience and has a learning curve, whereas 3DPG use requires CAD software and 3D printing access.
  • FHP had more lateral canal violations (Grade IIIa: 4/56 vs 0/56 for 3DPG), suggesting slightly less precision.
  • Both techniques were safe, and all deviations were recognized and corrected intraoperatively.
  • 3DPGs may offer practical advantages in clinical settings lacking surgical expertise, while FHP allows immediate intervention without 3D printing delay.

Simini Surgery Review Podcast

How critical is this paper for crushing the Boards?

🚨 Must-know. I’d bet on seeing this.

📚 Useful background, not must-know.

💤 Skip it. Doubt it’ll ever show up.

Thanks for the feedback!
‍We'll keep fine-tuning the articles vault.
Oops — didn’t go through.
‍Mind trying that again?
← Articles

Mullins et al: 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
Veterinary Surgery 5, 2023

🔍 Key Findings

  • Both free-hand probing (FHP) and 3D-printed guides (3DPG) enabled accurate spinal pin placement, with 87.5% vs 96.4% of pins graded as optimal (Grade I).
  • 3DPGs had fewer intraoperative deviations (0/56 pins) compared to 6/56 with the FHP technique.
  • No pins using either method fully breached the medial vertebral canal (Grade IIb) — a critical safety outcome.
  • Pins placed using 3DPGs required less time overall (mean 2.6 min) than FHP (mean 4.5 min).
  • FHP required specific experience and has a learning curve, whereas 3DPG use requires CAD software and 3D printing access.
  • FHP had more lateral canal violations (Grade IIIa: 4/56 vs 0/56 for 3DPG), suggesting slightly less precision.
  • Both techniques were safe, and all deviations were recognized and corrected intraoperatively.
  • 3DPGs may offer practical advantages in clinical settings lacking surgical expertise, while FHP allows immediate intervention without 3D printing delay.

Simini Surgery Review Podcast

Join Now to Access Key Summaries to more Veterinary Surgery Articles!
Log InSign Up

Multiple Choice Questions on this study

In Mullins 2023 et al., on thoracolumbar pin placement, which technique had zero intraoperative technique deviations?

A. Free-hand probing (FHP)
B. 3D-printed drill guides (3DPG)
C. Fluoroscopy-guided pin placement
D. Image-guided screw insertion
E. Manual pin tapping

Answer: 3D-printed drill guides (3DPG)

Explanation: 3DPGs had no intraoperative technique deviations, whereas 6 deviations occurred using the FHP technique.
In Mullins 2023 et al., on thoracolumbar pin placement, which of the following best explains the design advantage of 3DPGs?

A. Flexible probe redirection
B. Real-time feedback from impedance device
C. Custom fit based on CT-derived anatomy
D. Compatible with fluoroscopy and ultrasound
E. Manual placement using goniometer

Answer: Custom fit based on CT-derived anatomy

Explanation: 3DPGs were created from CT data and designed for anatomic conformity, enhancing accuracy.
In Mullins 2023 et al., on thoracolumbar pin placement, what was the **mean duration** for pin placement using the 3DPG technique?

A. 2.6 minutes
B. 4.5 minutes
C. 3.8 minutes
D. 1.9 minutes
E. 2.0 minutes

Answer: 2.6 minutes

Explanation: Pin placement with 3DPGs took significantly less time, averaging 2.6 minutes compared to 4.5 with FHP.
In Mullins 2023 et al., on thoracolumbar pin placement, which grading outcome was **not** observed with either technique?

A. Grade I (optimal placement)
B. Grade IIa (partial medial violation)
C. Grade IIb (full medial violation)
D. Grade IIIa (partial lateral violation)
E. Grade IIIb (full lateral violation)

Answer: Grade IIb (full medial violation)

Explanation: Neither technique resulted in Grade IIb canal violations, indicating high safety for both methods.
In Mullins 2023 et al., on thoracolumbar pin placement, what was a key **limitation** of the FHP technique noted in the study?

A. Required fluoroscopic guidance
B. Unreliable in thoracic pedicles
C. Limited to cervical spine
D. Steep learning curve and operator experience dependency
E. Only usable in small breed dogs

Answer: Steep learning curve and operator experience dependency

Explanation: FHP required training and anatomical familiarity, which impacted intraoperative deviation rates.

Elevate Your Infection Control Protocol

Implement Simini Protect Lavage for superior, clinically-proven post-operative skin antisepsis and reduced infection risk.

Start Your Free Trial TodayStart Your Free Trial

Review More Key Summaries from this Veterinary Surgery Journal Issue

Ferreira

 et al: 

Effect of heated pneumoperitoneum on body temperature in dogs undergoing laparoscopic ovariectomy—A randomized controlled trial

Otero Balda

 et al: 

Prognostic factors for short‐term survival of cats that experienced postattenuation neurologic signs after surgical attenuation of single congenital portosystemic shunts

Miller

 et al: 

Cooled feline intestine and fresh intestine did not differ in enterotomy leak pressure testing or in gross wall thickness measurement

Hawker

 et al: 

Attitudes towards surgical safety checklists among American College of Veterinary Surgeons diplomates

Monnet

 et al: 

Influence of conventional versus unidirectional barbed suture on leakage pressures in canine vesicourethral anastomosis: An ex-vivo study