Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Accuracy of Instrument Portal Placement Using a Custom-Made 3D-Printed Aiming Device versus Free Hand Technique in Canine Elbow Arthroscopy
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Accuracy of Instrument Portal Placement Using a Custom-Made 3D-Printed Aiming Device versus Free Hand Technique in Canine Elbow Arthroscopy
Do you wish to request the book?
Accuracy of Instrument Portal Placement Using a Custom-Made 3D-Printed Aiming Device versus Free Hand Technique in Canine Elbow Arthroscopy
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Accuracy of Instrument Portal Placement Using a Custom-Made 3D-Printed Aiming Device versus Free Hand Technique in Canine Elbow Arthroscopy
2023
Overview
While the insertion of the arthroscope into the elbow joint is relatively easy based on anatomical landmarks, obtaining a correctly located instrument portal is often difficult. Therefore, the goal of the study was to create a 3D-printed prototype of an aiming device for the guiding needle, and to check its feasibility. The study included fresh cadavers of 15 dogs, 9 males and 6 females, aged from 1 to 6 years (median 4 years) with body weight from 17 to 57 kg (median 30 kg). On each dog, we compared the number of attempts needed to obtain optimal direction of the guiding needle for the portal, using one elbow the prototype, and performing this as control on the opposite joint without the prototype (with a free hand). The number of attempts needed was significantly lower using the prototype (median 1) than on the control elbows (median 2, p = 0.009). The number of attempts was not correlated with the body weight neither in the case of experimental (Rs = 0.18, p = 0.532) nor control elbows (Rs = 0.13, p = 0.642). We conclude that the used prototype seems to be helpful in elbow joint arthroscopy.
