Scortea et al: Comparative analysis of 3D-printed drill guides and minimally invasive osteosynthesis in feline sacroiliac luxation: A cadaveric study
Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology 6, 2025

🔍 Key Findings

  • 3D-printed drill guide technique (3D-DGT) resulted in fewer suboptimal screw placements than minimally invasive osteosynthesis (MIO) (7.14% vs 42.85%), though not statistically significant.
  • Entry point translation (EPT) in the dorsoventral direction was significantly lower with 3D-DGT compared with MIO (p = .009).
  • Maximum angular screw deviation (MASD) did not differ significantly between 3D-DGT and MIO in dorsal or transverse planes.
  • Ventral cortical breach was the most common error with both techniques, more frequent with MIO.
  • Achievement of >60% sacral bone purchase was more consistent with 3D-DGT (92.9%) than with MIO (64.3%).
  • Modified Gras grade distribution was similar between techniques, with most screws graded as secure (“a” or “b”).
  • 3D-DGT required substantially longer preoperative planning time than MIO (median 34 vs 8.5 minutes).
  • Both techniques demonstrated overall acceptable accuracy, emphasizing the importance of CT-based planning and assessment.

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?

Scortea et al: Comparative analysis of 3D-printed drill guides and minimally invasive osteosynthesis in feline sacroiliac luxation: A cadaveric study
Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology 6, 2025

🔍 Key Findings

  • 3D-printed drill guide technique (3D-DGT) resulted in fewer suboptimal screw placements than minimally invasive osteosynthesis (MIO) (7.14% vs 42.85%), though not statistically significant.
  • Entry point translation (EPT) in the dorsoventral direction was significantly lower with 3D-DGT compared with MIO (p = .009).
  • Maximum angular screw deviation (MASD) did not differ significantly between 3D-DGT and MIO in dorsal or transverse planes.
  • Ventral cortical breach was the most common error with both techniques, more frequent with MIO.
  • Achievement of >60% sacral bone purchase was more consistent with 3D-DGT (92.9%) than with MIO (64.3%).
  • Modified Gras grade distribution was similar between techniques, with most screws graded as secure (“a” or “b”).
  • 3D-DGT required substantially longer preoperative planning time than MIO (median 34 vs 8.5 minutes).
  • Both techniques demonstrated overall acceptable accuracy, emphasizing the importance of CT-based planning and assessment.

Simini Surgery Review Podcast

Know What Matters in the Literature - and Why

We distill peer-reviewed surgical studies into clinically relevant summaries and
exam-style questions, so you can make informed decisions with confidence.

Free Access. No Spam. Just Smarter Surgical Learning

Multiple Choice Questions on this study

In Scortea 2025 et al., on sacroiliac fixation accuracy, what was a key limitation of the 3D-printed drill guide technique?

A. Higher angular deviation
B. Increased risk of dorsal canal breach
C. Need for extensive postoperative imaging
D. Longer preoperative planning time
E. Inability to use CT planning

Answer: Longer preoperative planning time

Explanation: Median planning time was ~34 minutes for 3D-DGT versus ~8.5 minutes for MIO.
In Scortea 2025 et al., on sacroiliac fixation accuracy, which statement regarding sacral bone purchase is correct?

A. MIO achieved >60% purchase in all cases
B. 3D-DGT consistently failed to reach 60% purchase
C. 3D-DGT achieved >60% purchase more consistently than MIO
D. Neither technique achieved adequate purchase
E. Purchase was not evaluated

Answer: 3D-DGT achieved >60% purchase more consistently than MIO

Explanation: >60% sacral bone purchase was achieved in 92.9% of 3D-DGT screws versus 64.3% with MIO.

Access the full library of surgical summaries and exam-style questions.

Educational content developed independently and supported by Simini.

The maker of Simini Protect Lavage.