Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 37 references

Improved Accuracy in Pelvic Tumor Resections Using a Real-Time Vision-Guided Surgical System

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read On sawbones, a projector-and-jig surgical system cut pelvic tumor resections more accurately than freehand, with mean distance deviation falling from 2.07 to 1.01 mm.

desk verdict Solid bench study of a pelvic adaptation of a known light-projection jig system; the statistics are overclaimed but the underlying effect looks real. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.23984 v1 pith:63MVLKFF submitted 2025-05-29 eess.IV cs.HC

Vahid Danesh , Paul Arauz , Maede Boroji , Andrew Zhu , Mia Cottone , Elaine Gould , Fazel A. Khan , Imin Kao This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVcs.HC
keywords vision-guidedsurgerypelvicbonetumorresectionaccuracysurgicalnavigationmodularjigsopticaltrackingsawbonestudyTypeIIperiacetabular
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tests whether a real-time vision-guided surgical system—a structured-light 3D scanner, a camera, and a light projector that displays the planned osteotomy pattern directly on the bone—combined with reusable modular cutting jigs can reproduce preoperative pelvic tumor resection planes more accurately than the traditional freehand technique. Working on simulated Type II periacetabular (around the hip socket) tumors in five pelvis sawbones, with ten hemipelvises randomly assigned to method and twenty cut planes analyzed per arm, it reports that the guided system reduced mean distance deviation from 2.07 ± 1.71 mm to 1.01 ± 0.78 mm (P = .0193), reduced roll and pitch angular deviations by about 70%, and kept all twenty guided planes within a 3 mm safety margin. The authors interpret this as evidence that a low-cost, reusable, monitor-free guidance approach can deliver accuracy comparable to computer navigation and patient-specific instruments, while avoiding their costs, radiation, lead times, and workflow disruption. If correct, this matters because accurate reproduction of the plan is what preserves healthy tissue and keeps resection margins clear of tumor.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the pairing of a modular cutting jig with a projected pattern. The jig is assembled from standardized snap-fit components—a base with K-wire guide holes, snap-fit contact pins, and multiple resection components with 1.8 mm blade slots—so it can be configured intraoperatively to encase the tumor with the planned safety margin. During surgery, a 3D-marker pinned to the bone is scanned to register the bone to its preoperative CT model, a 2D-marker snap-fits onto it for continuous optical tracking, and the projector overlays the planned pattern onto the surgical field; the surgeon aligns the jig's engraved rectangle to the projected pattern, pins the jig with two parallel K-wires, and cuts through the built-in slots. Accuracy is evaluated by 3D-scanning the resected planes and measuring distance, roll, and pitch deviations relative to the planned planes in a pelvis-fixed coordinate system (origin at mid-ASIS, Y mediolateral between ASISs, X ventrally toward the PSIS midpoint, Z cranially). That coordinate definition and deviation metric are what turn raw cuts into the reported numbers.

What would settle it

Take one resected sawbone from each method, scan and register it twenty times through the full measurement pipeline, and compute the standard deviation of the reported distance deviation per plane; if that repeatability is at or above about 1 mm, the 2.07-to-1.01 mm gap between methods could be explained by measurement noise rather than surgical accuracy.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that integrating a validated light-projection navigation system with modular cutting jigs improves the accuracy of simulated pelvic bone tumor resections compared with freehand cutting. Specifically, the vision-guided and modular jig system reproduces planned Type II periacetabular resection planes on sawbones with a mean distance deviation of 1.01 ± 0.78 mm versus 2.07 ± 1.71 mm for freehand, with roll deviation improved from 15.36° to 4.21° and pitch from 6.17° to 1.84°, all statistically significant. The guided method also produced lower variability across resections and achieved a 100% rate of maintaining a 3 mm surgical margin, whereas the freehand method kept the margin in 85% of planes and included one intralesional resection exceeding 5 mm. The authors present the system as matching the accuracy of computer-assisted navigation and patient-specific instruments while eliminating external monitors, radiation exposure, and the weeks-long customized fabrication of patient-specific guides.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the measurement pipeline—3D-scanning each cut sawbone, registering the scan to the CT plan, and extracting the resected plane—is accurate enough that its own error is small relative to the roughly 1 mm difference between methods; the paper does not report the repeatability or bias of that pipeline.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • All twenty vision-guided resection planes stayed within a 3 mm deviation from the plan, while the freehand method exceeded 3 mm in three of twenty planes and crossed into the simulated tumor in one.
  • Lower standard deviations under the guided system (0.78 vs 1.71 mm for distance) imply the method reduces not only mean error but also variability between cuts, which is what a reproducible safety margin depends on.
  • The reported accuracy is comparable to prior computer-navigation results (about 2.8 mm maximum deviation) and patient-specific instrument results (about 4 mm), suggesting the system can substitute for those technologies without their cost and lead time.
  • Because the modular jig uses reusable stock components instead of patient-specific fabrication, the same hardware can be adapted across cases and re-sterilized, which the authors argue addresses the main economic barrier to 3D-printed patient-specific instruments.
  • For the superior pubic ramus osteotomy, where the jig cannot be secured, the projected pattern itself guides the cut, extending the system's use to anatomically constrained sites.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A direct test of the system's central promise would be a cadaveric pelvis study with overlying soft tissue, since the freehand arm in this experiment was likely idealized—the surgeon had unobstructed views of sawbones and could take extra time, so the real-world freehand gap could be larger than measured.
  • The 1 mm-scale difference between methods is comparable in magnitude to the likely error of the 3D-scan-and-register measurement pipeline itself; repeating the pipeline on the same cut surfaces to quantify its repeatability would tell whether the reported improvement is entirely surgical or partly measurement.
  • If the registration error under soft-tissue obstruction can be kept low, the same projector-and-marker architecture could be applied to other periacetabular resection types or to joint arthroplasty, where cutting-guide alignment errors have the same geometric structure.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports an experimental comparison between a vision-guided modular jig system and freehand resection for simulated Type II periacetabular pelvic tumor resections on five sawbone pelvises. Each hemipelvis was randomly assigned to one of the two methods, yielding 20 resection planes per method. The authors measure distance deviation, roll angle deviation, pitch angle deviation, and maximum deviation relative to the CT-based preoperative plan, and report statistically significant improvements in the first three metrics (P=.0193, .0275, <.001) plus a nonsignificant improvement in maximum deviation (P=.0952). They conclude that the vision-guided system more accurately and consistently reproduces the planned resection planes.

Significance. If the results hold, the system would offer a promising, lower-cost and reusable alternative to computer navigation and patient-specific instruments for pelvic tumor resection, with accuracy comparable to prior navigation and PSI studies. The study has important strengths: the outcome measures are defined geometrically against an external CT-based plan and virtual tumor boundary, the freehand arm is an independent control, the Wilcoxon rank-sum test is an appropriate nonparametric choice for skewed angular data, and the reported effect sizes are substantial. However, two load-bearing issues currently cap the strength of the claims: the statistical analysis treats clustered resection planes as independent observations, and the measurement pipeline's own accuracy is not characterized. The paper also provides useful margin-safety analyses (Table 2) that are directly relevant to oncologic practice.

major comments (2)
  1. [§2.5 and Table 1] The Wilcoxon rank-sum test treats each of the 20 resection planes as an independent observation, but the 20 planes come from only five hemipelvises per method (five pelvises, one hemipelvis per method, four planes per hemipelvis). Planes within a hemipelvis share the same bone geometry, jig placement, measurement session, and surgeon, so they are correlated replicates rather than independent samples. Under this clustering, the effective sample size for the between-method comparison is at most five per group. A per-hemipelvis analysis (e.g., mean deviation per hemipelvis, n=5 per group, or a mixed-effects model with hemipelvis as a random effect) is needed to confirm the headline P=.0193 for distance deviation; with n=5 per group, only complete separation would yield a two-sided Wilcoxon p below 0.05. The current analysis can produce a spurious plane-level P value even when no per-hemipelvis effect exists, so the central claim of a 'significant' improvement is not yet supported at the appropriate unit of analysis.
  2. [§2.4] The accuracy measures are computed by scanning the resected bone, registering it to the CT-based plan, and extracting planes from the scanned surfaces, but the manuscript reports no repeatability, bias, or calibration data for this measurement pipeline. The reported between-method difference in mean distance deviation is approximately 1 mm, which is the same order as typical registration and digitization errors in structured-light scanning. If the measurement pipeline itself has a bias or a repeatability error of, say, 0.5-1 mm, the separation between the two methods could shrink substantially or change sign for individual planes. The authors mention future uncertainty analysis in the Discussion, but a calibration or repeated-measurement validation of the digitization workflow is a prerequisite for the current claim of superiority. I request that the authors either report such a validation or clearly bound the measurement error and propagate it into the statistical comparison.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 1] The row for maximum deviation (MD) lists a sample size of 5 while all other rows list 20. If MD is computed once per hemipelvis rather than per plane, this should be stated explicitly in the table caption and in the statistical analysis section, and the P-value interpretation should account for the lower sample size.
  2. [§2.2] The virtual tumor is described as a sphere centered on the hip rotation center, but the choice of sphere radius relative to the safety margin is not specified. Please state how the tumor size and safety margin were determined and whether the same sphere dimensions were used for all five pelvises.
  3. [Figure 4] The figure caption classifies deviations exceeding 5 mm as positive (involved) resections, but this threshold is not defined in the Methods section. Please define the positive-margin threshold in the text and relate it to the virtual tumor boundary and safety margin definitions.
  4. [§2.3] The freehand method is described as allowing the surgeon to review the plan with no time limitation and to use rulers and protractors on exposed sawbones without overlying soft tissue. This is a strength of the study design (it gives freehand a favorable setting), but the reader should be told explicitly that this may overestimate freehand accuracy compared to clinical reality, and that the comparison is therefore conservative.
  5. [§5] The Conclusion states that the system achieved 'substantial improvements across all measured parameters,' but Table 1 shows the maximum deviation comparison was not significant (P=.0952). Please qualify this sentence to refer to the three metrics that reached significance and to describe the maximum-deviation result as a nonsignificant trend.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the accuracy comparison is measured against external CT-based planes and an independent freehand control, and the cited self-work is contextual rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The central claim—that the vision-guided modular jig system improves resection accuracy over freehand—is not circular. Accuracy is defined geometrically as the distance and angular deviation between post-operative resected planes and preoperatively planned cutting planes (Section 2.4), and the planned planes are anchored to the CT-derived bone model and the virtual tumor sphere, which are external to the system's output. The freehand arm is an independent control, and the surgeon was not involved in developing the system. No parameter is fitted to the outcome and then reported as a prediction; the measured deviations come from 3D scanning of the cut sawbones, not from the guidance system itself. The paper does cite the authors' prior work (refs 26–29, 32–33) to describe the light-projection, registration, and uncertainty-analysis components, but those citations support the engineering pedigree of the system rather than the headline statistical result, which is generated by the present experiment's own data. A legitimate concern is that the Wilcoxon test treats 20 resection planes from only five hemipelvises per group as independent replicates, which could inflate significance, but that is a statistical-independence issue, not circularity. Because the self-citations are not load-bearing for the measured outcome, the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The experimental comparison itself is not circular: deviations are geometric measurements against a CT-based plan and a virtual tumor sphere, with freehand as an independent control. The structural load is carried by the measurement pipeline (digitized resected planes, assumed sub-millimeter accuracy, no repeatability reported), the independence assumption for the 20 planes clustered in 5 pelvises, and the sawbone idealization the authors acknowledge. Device geometry and the 3 mm threshold are hand-chosen inputs, not fitted parameters, and no unobserved theoretical entities are postulated; the optical marker system has accuracy characterization in the group's prior peer-reviewed work (refs 32-33).

free parameters (3)
  • 3 mm safety-margin threshold = 3 mm
    Hand-chosen evaluation threshold for Table 2 success rates; clinically motivated but it sits just above the system's reported maximum deviation (2.43 mm), so the 100% success figure follows from Table 1.
  • Modular jig geometry (base 35x24x20 mm, 1.8 mm slots, 10x20 mm resection components) = base 35x24x20 mm; slot 1.8 mm
    Engineering design choices for the device; they define the cutting guide rather than being fitted to outcome data.
  • Virtual tumor sphere size = not reported
    Section 2.2 places spheres on the hip rotation center but does not report the radius; margin distances in Table 1 depend on this planned geometry.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Digitization of post-resection planes from 3D scans is accurate and repeatable at sub-millimeter scale
    Section 2.4 computes all deviations from resected planes; no repeatability or bias analysis is reported for this measurement pipeline.
  • ad hoc to paper The 20 resection planes are independent observations for the Wilcoxon test
    Section 2.5 pools 20 planes from 5 pelvises (10 hemipelvises); planes from the same hemipelvis share registration, jig placement, and cutting conditions, so true sample size is smaller.
  • domain assumption Sawbone pelves with no soft tissue reproduce the relevant resection conditions
    Discussion acknowledges surgeons can measure and view sawbones in ways impossible in live surgery; this is an acknowledged idealization, not a hidden one.
  • domain assumption A virtual sphere at the hip rotation center is a valid Type II tumor surrogate
    Section 2.2 uses spheres to model periacetabular tumors; standard for simulated resections but ignores irregular tumor geometry and margins.
invented entities (1)
  • 3D-marker and 2D-marker snap-fit optical tracking system independent evidence
    purpose: Registers the exposed bone to the preoperative CT model (3D marker) and maintains real-time tracking of the bone without re-registration (2D marker) so the projected pattern stays aligned.
    This is a manufactured device component, not an unobserved theoretical object. Its tracking accuracy was characterized in the group's prior peer-reviewed work (refs 32, 33), and this study's measured deviations provide a further falsifiable check.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Improved Accuracy in Pelvic Tumor Resections Using a Real-Time Vision-Guided Surgical System." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/63MVLKFF

@misc{pith2026250523984,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Improved Accuracy in Pelvic Tumor Resections Using a Real-Time Vision-Guided Surgical System},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/63MVLKFF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.23984}
}
abstract

Pelvic bone tumor resections remain significantly challenging due to complex three-dimensional anatomy and limited surgical visualization. Current navigation systems and patient-specific instruments, while accurate, present limitations including high costs, radiation exposure, workflow disruption, long production time, and lack of reusability. This study evaluates a real-time vision-guided surgical system combined with modular jigs to improve accuracy in pelvic bone tumor resections. A vision-guided surgical system combined with modular cutting jigs and real-time optical tracking was developed and validated. Five female pelvis sawbones were used, with each hemipelvis randomly assigned to either the vision-guided and modular jig system or traditional freehand method. A total of twenty resection planes were analyzed for each method. Accuracy was assessed by measuring distance and angular deviations from the planned resection planes. The vision-guided and modular jig system significantly improved resection accuracy compared to the freehand method, reducing the mean distance deviation from 2.07 $\pm$ 1.71 mm to 1.01 $\pm$ 0.78 mm (p=0.0193). In particular, all specimens resected using the vision-guided system exhibited errors of less than 3 mm. Angular deviations also showed significant improvements with roll angle deviation reduced from 15.36 $\pm$ 17.57$^\circ$ to 4.21 $\pm$ 3.46$^\circ$ (p=0.0275), and pitch angle deviation decreased from 6.17 $\pm$ 4.58$^\circ$ to 1.84 $\pm$ 1.48$^\circ$ (p<0.001). The proposed vision-guided and modular jig system significantly improves the accuracy of pelvic bone tumor resections while maintaining workflow efficiency. This cost-effective solution provides real-time guidance without the need for referencing external monitors, potentially improving surgical outcomes in complex pelvic bone tumor cases.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Osteosarcoma of the pelvis: experi- ence of the Cooperative Osteosarcoma Study Group

    Ozaki T, Flege S, Kevric M, et al. Osteosarcoma of the pelvis: experi- ence of the Cooperative Osteosarcoma Study Group. Journal of clini- cal oncology. 2003;21(2):334–341. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2003.01.142

    work page doi:10.1200/jco.2003.01.142 2003

  2. [2]

    Os- teosarcoma of the pelvis: outcome analysis of surgical treatment

    Fuchs B, Hoekzema N, Larson DR, Inwards CY , Sim FH. Os- teosarcoma of the pelvis: outcome analysis of surgical treatment. Clinical orthopaedics and related research.2009;467:510–518. doi: 10.1007/s11999-008-0495-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s11999-008-0495-x 2009

  3. [3]

    Accuracy of MR imag- ing for detecting epiphyseal extension of osteosarcoma

    Hoffer FA, Nikanorov AY , Reddick WE, et al. Accuracy of MR imag- ing for detecting epiphyseal extension of osteosarcoma. Pediatric radiology. 2000;30:289-298. doi: 10.1007/s002470050743

    work page doi:10.1007/s002470050743

  4. [4]

    The accuracy of imaging in the local staging of ap- pendicular osteosarcoma

    Saifuddin A. The accuracy of imaging in the local staging of ap- pendicular osteosarcoma. Skeletal radiology. 2002;31:191-201. doi: 10.1007/s00256-001-0471-y

    work page doi:10.1007/s00256-001-0471-y 2002

  5. [5]

    Haptic robot-assisted surgery improves accuracy of wide resection of bone tumors: a pilot study

    Khan F, Pearle A, Lightcap C, Boland PJ, Healey JH. Haptic robot-assisted surgery improves accuracy of wide resection of bone tumors: a pilot study. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®. 2013;471:851-859. doi: 10.1007/s11999-012-2529-7

    work page doi:10.1007/s11999-012-2529-7 2013

  6. [6]

    Principles of tumor management

    Springfield D, Enneking W, Neff J, Makley J. Principles of tumor management. Instructional course lectures. 1984;33:1-25

    work page 1984

  7. [7]

    Surgical treatment for osteosarcoma

    Springfield DS, Schmidt R, Graham-Pole J, Marcus Jr R, Spanier S, Enneking W. Surgical treatment for osteosarcoma. JBJS. 1988;70(8):1124-1130

    work page 1988

  8. [8]

    Surgical inaccuracy of tumor resection and reconstruction within the pelvis: an ex- perimental study

    Cartiaux O, Docquier PL, Paul L, et al. Surgical inaccuracy of tumor resection and reconstruction within the pelvis: an ex- perimental study. Acta orthopaedica. 2008;79(5):695–702. doi: 10.1080/17453670810016731

    work page doi:10.1080/17453670810016731 2008

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    Computer-assisted and robot-assisted technologies to improve bone-cutting accuracy when integrated with a freehand process using an oscillating saw

    Cartiaux O, Paul L, Docquier PL, Raucent B, Dombre E, Banse X. Computer-assisted and robot-assisted technologies to improve bone-cutting accuracy when integrated with a freehand process using an oscillating saw. JBJS. 2010;92(11):2076–2082. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.I.00457

    2010 doi

  2. [10]

    Treatment and outcome of recurrent osteosarcoma: experience at Rizzoli in 235 patients initially treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy

    Bacci G, Briccoli A, Longhi A, et al. Treatment and outcome of recurrent osteosarcoma: experience at Rizzoli in 235 patients initially treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Acta Oncologica. 2005;44(7):748-755. doi: 10.1080/02841860500327503

    2005 doi

  3. [11]

    Treatment algorithm for locally recurrent osteosarcoma based on local disease-free interval and the presence of lung metastasis

    Nathan SS, Gorlick R, Bukata S, et al. Treatment algorithm for locally recurrent osteosarcoma based on local disease-free interval and the presence of lung metastasis. Cancer. 2006;107(7):1607-1616. doi: 10.1002/cncr.22197

    2006 doi

  4. [12]

    Multiplanar osteotomy with limited wide margins: a tissue preserving surgical technique for high- grade bone sarcomas

    Avedian RS, Haydon RC, Peabody TD. Multiplanar osteotomy with limited wide margins: a tissue preserving surgical technique for high- grade bone sarcomas. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®. 2010;468(10):2754-2764. doi: 10.1007/s11999-010-1362-0

    2010 doi

  5. [13]

    Computer-assisted planning and navigation improves cutting accuracy during simulated bone tumor surgery of the pelvis

    Cartiaux O, Banse X, Paul L, Francq BG, Aubin CE, Docquier PL. Computer-assisted planning and navigation improves cutting accuracy during simulated bone tumor surgery of the pelvis. Computer Aided Surgery. 2013;18(1-2):19-26. doi: 10.3109/10929088.2012.744096

    2013

  6. [14]

    Computer-and robot- assisted resection and reconstruction of pelvic bone tumours—a 8 DANESH ET AL

    Cartiaux O, Paul L, Docquier PL, Banse X. Computer-and robot- assisted resection and reconstruction of pelvic bone tumours—a 8 DANESH ET AL . review. European Musculoskeletal Review. 2011;6(2):125-130. doi: 10.1097/BCO.0b013e318221b1a3

    2011 doi

  7. [15]

    Recent advances in navigation-assisted musculoskeletal tumor resection

    Abraham JA. Recent advances in navigation-assisted musculoskeletal tumor resection. Current Orthopaedic Practice. 2011;22(4):297-302

    2011

  8. [16]

    Computer- assisted pelvic tumor resection: fields of application, limits, and per- spectives

    Fehlberg S, Eulenstein S, Lange T, Andreou D, Tunn PU. Computer- assisted pelvic tumor resection: fields of application, limits, and per- spectives. Treatment of Bone and Soft Tissue Sarcomas.2009:169-182. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-77960-5_11

    2009 doi

  9. [17]

    Combining Surgical Navigation and 3D Printing for Less Invasive Pelvic Tumor Resections

    García-Sevilla M, Mediavilla-Santos L, Moreta-Martinez R, et al. Combining Surgical Navigation and 3D Printing for Less Invasive Pelvic Tumor Resections. IEEE Access. 2021;9:133541-133551. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3115984

    2021

  10. [18]

    Dig- ital chain for pelvic tumor resection with 3D-printed surgical cutting guides

    Biscaccianti V , Fragnaud H, Hascoët JY , Crenn V , Vidal L. Dig- ital chain for pelvic tumor resection with 3D-printed surgical cutting guides. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology. 2022;10:991676. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2022.991676

    2022

  11. [19]

    Improved accuracy with 3D planning and patient-specific instruments during sim- ulated pelvic bone tumor surgery

    Cartiaux O, Paul L, Francq BG, Banse X, Docquier PL. Improved accuracy with 3D planning and patient-specific instruments during sim- ulated pelvic bone tumor surgery. Annals of biomedical engineering. 2014;42:205-213. doi: 10.1007/s10439-013-0890-7

    2014 doi

  12. [20]

    How does cus- tomized cutting guide design affect accuracy and ergonomics in pelvic tumor resection? A study in cadavers

    Fragnaud H, Biscaccianti V , Hascoët JY , et al. How does cus- tomized cutting guide design affect accuracy and ergonomics in pelvic tumor resection? A study in cadavers. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research ®. 2022:10.1097. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/corr.0000000000003000

    2022 doi

  13. [21]

    Tumor resection at the pelvis using three-dimensional planning and patient- specific instruments: a case series

    Jentzsch T, Vlachopoulos L, Fürnstahl P, Müller DA, Fuchs B. Tumor resection at the pelvis using three-dimensional planning and patient- specific instruments: a case series. World journal of surgical oncology. 2016;14:1-12. doi: 10.1186/s12957-016-1006-2

    2016 doi

  14. [22]

    How 3D patient-specific instruments improve accuracy of pelvic bone tumour resection in a cadaveric study

    Sallent A, Vicente M, Reverté M, et al. How 3D patient-specific instruments improve accuracy of pelvic bone tumour resection in a cadaveric study. Bone & joint research. 2017;6(10):577-583. doi: 10.1302/2046-3758.610.BJR-2017-0094.R1

    2017 doi

  15. [23]

    Resection mar- gins obtained with patient-specific instruments for resecting pri- mary pelvic bone sarcomas: A case-control study

    Evrard R, Schubert T, Paul L, Docquier PL. Resection mar- gins obtained with patient-specific instruments for resecting pri- mary pelvic bone sarcomas: A case-control study. Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research. 2019;105(4):781-787. doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2018.12.016

    2019 doi

  16. [24]

    Pelvic resections.Ortho- pedics

    Mavrogenis AF, Soultanis K, Patapis P, et al. Pelvic resections.Ortho- pedics. 2012;35(2):e232-e243. doi: 10.3928/01477447-20120123-40

    2012 doi

  17. [25]

    Cost-effectiveness of patient specific vs conventional instrumenta- tion for total knee arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis

    Dorling IM, Geenen L, Heymans MJ, Most J, Boonen B, Schotanus MG. Cost-effectiveness of patient specific vs conventional instrumenta- tion for total knee arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis. World Journal of Orthopedics. 2023;14(6):458

    2023

  18. [26]

    A novel method of light projec- tion and modular jigs to improve accuracy in bone sarcoma resection

    He G, Dai AZ, Mustahsan VM, et al. A novel method of light projec- tion and modular jigs to improve accuracy in bone sarcoma resection. Journal of Orthopaedic Research ®. 2022;40(11):2522-2536. doi: 10.1002/jor.25300

    2022 doi

  19. [27]

    A novel 3d light assisted drawing (3d-lad) method to aid intraoperative repro- duction of osteotomy lines surrounding a bone tumor during wide resection: An experimental study

    He G, Dai AZ, Mustahsan VM, Blum CL, Kao I, Khan FA. A novel 3d light assisted drawing (3d-lad) method to aid intraoperative repro- duction of osteotomy lines surrounding a bone tumor during wide resection: An experimental study. Orthopedic Research and Reviews. 2022:101-109. ...

    2022 doi

  20. [28]

    A novel bone registration method us- ing impression molding and structured-light 3D scanning technology

    He G, Ricca JM, Dai AZ, et al. A novel bone registration method us- ing impression molding and structured-light 3D scanning technology. Journal of Orthopaedic Research ®. 2022;40(10):2340–2349. doi: 10.1002/jor.25275

    2022 doi

  21. [29]

    Report on a novel bone registration method: a rapid, accurate, and radiation-free tech- nique for computer-and robotic-assisted orthopedic surgeries

    He G, Mustahsan VM, Bielski MR, Kao I, Khan FA. Report on a novel bone registration method: a rapid, accurate, and radiation-free tech- nique for computer-and robotic-assisted orthopedic surgeries. Journal of Orthopaedics. 2021;23:227-232

    2021

  22. [30]

    Pelvic Resections (Internal Hemipelvectomies):405–414; Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands

    Bickels J, Malawer M. Pelvic Resections (Internal Hemipelvectomies):405–414; Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands . 2001

    2001

  23. [31]

    Periacetabular Resections:425–438; Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands

    Malawer M. Periacetabular Resections:425–438; Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands . 2001

    2001

  24. [32]

    Experimental and Computational Study of Error and Uncertainty in Real-Time Camera-Based Tracking of a Two-Dimensional Marker for Orthopedic Surgical Navigation

    He G, Fakhari A, Khan F, Kao I. Experimental and Computational Study of Error and Uncertainty in Real-Time Camera-Based Tracking of a Two-Dimensional Marker for Orthopedic Surgical Navigation. Journal of Verification, Validation and Uncertainty Quantification. 2023;8(2):021001...

    2023 doi

  25. [33]

    Propagation of Error and Uncertainty in a Computer-Assisted Orthopedic Surgical System

    He G, Fakhari A, Khan F, Kao I. Propagation of Error and Uncertainty in a Computer-Assisted Orthopedic Surgical System. IEEE Trans- actions on Instrumentation and Measurement. 2024;73:1-15. doi: 10.1109/TIM.2024.3378299 How to cite this article: Danesh V ., Arauz P., Boroji M....

    2024

  26. [34]

    Contact pins are preop- eratively selected and inserted into the base to optimize jig positioning on the bone, as shown in Fig A1(A) and Fig A1(B)

    Connect the base to the first resection component and an extension component, then attach the second resection component through the extension. Contact pins are preop- eratively selected and inserted into the base to optimize jig positioning on the bone, as shown in Fig A1(A) ...

  27. [35]

    Secure the jig with two parallel K-wires, then perform the first two cuts

    Position the jig on the bone to align the engraved pattern on the jig base with projected pattern. Secure the jig with two parallel K-wires, then perform the first two cuts

  28. [36]

    Replace the extension with the third resection component and perform the third cut, as shown in Fig A1(C)

  29. [37]

    This modular approach ensures precise and customizable re- sections based on individual anatomy and tumor characteristics

    Replace the base with the final resection jig for the final cut, as shown in Fig A1(D). This modular approach ensures precise and customizable re- sections based on individual anatomy and tumor characteristics

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.