← Articles

McCarthy et al: Accuracy of a drilling with a custom 3D printed guide or free‐hand technique in canine experimental sacroiliac luxations
Veterinary Surgery 1, 2022

🔍 Key Findings

  • 3D-printed drill guides (3D-GDT) significantly reduced craniocaudal and dorsoventral drilling angle deviation compared to free-hand drilling technique (FHDT), with statistical significance (p < .0001 and p = .01 respectively).
  • No sacral corridor breaches occurred with 3D-GDT, whereas FHDT resulted in 20% drill exit incidences (3/15 cases).
  • 3D-GDT had lower deviation from optimal drill trajectory at end points in all axes: craniocaudal (1.84 ± 1.6 mm vs. 4.18 ± 2.4 mm), dorsoventral (1.11 ± 1.0 mm vs. 2.4 ± 1.5 mm), and 3D linear (2.47 ± 1.4 mm vs. 5.35 ± 2.2 mm), all statistically significant.
  • Strong correlation (r = 0.77) between CT and 3D software measurements validated method reliability.
  • 3D guide trajectories showed consistent proximity to the optimal trajectory, especially at drill endpoints, indicating reduced variability in execution.
  • 3D-GDT was developed using open-source software and inexpensive materials, supporting future clinical application.
  • Major errors in FHDT occurred primarily at the drill endpoint, underscoring the challenge of maintaining optimal angulation during free-hand drilling.
  • The sacral corridor was recharacterized as pyramidal (not quadrilateral), with implications for safer implant placement.

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

McCarthy et al: Accuracy of a drilling with a custom 3D printed guide or free‐hand technique in canine experimental sacroiliac luxations
Veterinary Surgery 1, 2022

🔍 Key Findings

  • 3D-printed drill guides (3D-GDT) significantly reduced craniocaudal and dorsoventral drilling angle deviation compared to free-hand drilling technique (FHDT), with statistical significance (p < .0001 and p = .01 respectively).
  • No sacral corridor breaches occurred with 3D-GDT, whereas FHDT resulted in 20% drill exit incidences (3/15 cases).
  • 3D-GDT had lower deviation from optimal drill trajectory at end points in all axes: craniocaudal (1.84 ± 1.6 mm vs. 4.18 ± 2.4 mm), dorsoventral (1.11 ± 1.0 mm vs. 2.4 ± 1.5 mm), and 3D linear (2.47 ± 1.4 mm vs. 5.35 ± 2.2 mm), all statistically significant.
  • Strong correlation (r = 0.77) between CT and 3D software measurements validated method reliability.
  • 3D guide trajectories showed consistent proximity to the optimal trajectory, especially at drill endpoints, indicating reduced variability in execution.
  • 3D-GDT was developed using open-source software and inexpensive materials, supporting future clinical application.
  • Major errors in FHDT occurred primarily at the drill endpoint, underscoring the challenge of maintaining optimal angulation during free-hand drilling.
  • The sacral corridor was recharacterized as pyramidal (not quadrilateral), with implications for safer implant placement.

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 McCarthy 2022 et al., on 3D drill guide accuracy, how did CT and 3D analysis compare in assessing drill angles?

A. CT showed greater error than 3D software
B. There was no correlation between CT and 3D
C. CT overestimated dorsoventral angle compared to 3D
D. Strong correlation existed between CT and 3D analysis
E. CT consistently underestimated craniocaudal angles

Answer: Strong correlation existed between CT and 3D analysis

Explanation: A correlation coefficient of r = 0.77 indicated good agreement.
In McCarthy 2022 et al., on 3D drill guide accuracy, what was the advantage of 3D-GDT in terms of drill end point deviation?

A. Lower deviation in dorsoventral axis only
B. Lower deviation in craniocaudal axis only
C. No difference compared to FHDT
D. Lower deviation in craniocaudal, dorsoventral, and 3D linear distances
E. Higher deviation in all axes

Answer: Lower deviation in craniocaudal, dorsoventral, and 3D linear distances

Explanation: End point deviation was significantly reduced in all axes with 3D-GDT.
In McCarthy 2022 et al., on 3D drill guide accuracy, what was the primary proposed benefit of using a 3D-printed guide?

A. It enables drill-free surgery
B. It improves cosmetic outcomes
C. It reduces drill bit wear
D. It enhances drilling accuracy with reduced exit risk
E. It prevents need for CT scanning

Answer: It enhances drilling accuracy with reduced exit risk

Explanation: 3D-GDT minimized angular deviation and eliminated drill exits in this study.
In McCarthy 2022 et al., on 3D drill guide accuracy, what was the primary finding regarding drill angle deviation in the 3D-GDT group versus FHDT?

A. Craniocaudal and dorsoventral angles were significantly greater with 3D-GDT
B. Craniocaudal angles were greater and dorsoventral angles were lesser with 3D-GDT
C. No significant difference in angles was noted
D. Craniocaudal and dorsoventral angles were significantly lower with 3D-GDT
E. Only dorsoventral angle was significantly lower with 3D-GDT

Answer: Craniocaudal and dorsoventral angles were significantly lower with 3D-GDT

Explanation: 3D-GDT significantly reduced deviation in both planes, supporting increased accuracy.
In McCarthy 2022 et al., on 3D drill guide accuracy, what was the reported drill exit rate using free-hand drilling technique (FHDT)?

A. 0%
B. 10%
C. 20%
D. 40%
E. 50%

Answer: 20%

Explanation: FHDT resulted in 3 out of 15 drill tracts exiting the sacral corridor.

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

Get Instant Access

Educational content developed independently and supported by Simini.

The maker of Simini Protect Lavage.

Review More Key Summaries from this Veterinary Surgery Journal Issue

Yu

 et al: 

Systematic review of surgical treatment for severe elbow osteoarthritis in dogs

Campbell

 et al: 

Diagnosis and surgical management of septic peritonitis in small animals: A review

Levine

 et al: 

Intercostal thoracoscopic pericardiectomy in left lateral recumbency: A cadaveric study of feasibility, efficiency, and extent of pericardial resection

Latifi

 et al: 

Fascial plane mapping for superficial tumor resection in dogs. Part II: Forelimb

Miller

 et al: 

Complications and outcome following staphylectomy and folded flap palatoplasty in dogs with brachycephalic obstructive airway syndrome