ReviewSkeletal radiology2014
Computed tomography for preoperative planning in total hip arthroplasty: what radiologists need to know.
Review in Skeletal radiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The femoral neck-shaft angle on plain radiographs: a systematic review.Skeletal radiology · 2016Pooled it
- Highly accurate component placement does not improve patient-reported outcomes after total hip arthroplasty: A computerised tomography-based study.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2026Article
- CT protocols for lower limb arthroplasty: the Stanmore hip and knee protocols.EFORT open reviews · 2026Review
- Two-stage multi-task deep learning framework for simultaneous pelvic bone segmentation and landmark detection from CT images.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2024Article
- The variability of CT scan protocols for total hip arthroplasty: a call for harmonisation.EFORT open reviews · 2023Review
- Three-Dimensional Preoperative Planning Software for Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Comparison of the accuracy of 2D and 3D templating methods for planning primary total hip replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis.EFORT open reviews · 2022Review
- TI VIBE inversion MRI - An alternative to CT for imaging of hip pain.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2021Article
- Overview of Methods to Quantify Invasiveness of Surgical Approaches in Orthopedic Surgery-A Scoping Review.Frontiers in surgery · 2021Article
- Three-dimensional pre-operative planning of primary hip arthroplasty: a systematic literature review.EFORT open reviews · 2020Review
- Preoperative imaging of spinopelvic pathologies : State of the art.Der Orthopade · 2020Review
- Correlation between muscle mass and quality around the hip and of psoas muscles at L3 level using unenhanced CT scans.Skeletal radiology · 2020Article
- Osteoarthritis Changes Hip Geometry and Biomechanics Regardless of Bone Mineral Density-A Quantitative Computed Tomography Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2019Article
- Observational
- Femoral Stem Version in Primary Hip Arthroplasty: Challenges and Advances in 3D Planning.JB & JS open accessReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The number of total hip arthroplasties is continuously rising. Although less invasive surgical techniques, sophisticated component design, and intraoperative navigation techniques have been introduced, the rate of peri- and postoperative complications, including dislocations, fractures, nerve palsies, and infections, is still a major clinical problem. Better patient outcome, faster recovery and rehabilitation, and shorter operation times therefore remain to be accomplished. A promising strategy is to use minimally invasive techniques in conjunction with modular implants, aimed at independently reconstructing femoral offset and leg length on the basis of highly accurate preoperative planning. Plain radiographs have clear limitations for the correct estimation of hip joint geometry and bone quality. Three-dimensional assessment based on computed tomography (CT) allows optimizing the choice and positions of implants and anticipating difficulties to be encountered during surgery. Postoperative CT is used to monitor operative translation and plays a role in arthroplastic quality management. Radiologists should be familiar with the needs of orthopedic surgeons in terms of CT acquisition, post-processing, and data transfer. The CT protocol should be optimized to enhance image quality and reduce radiation exposure. When dedicated orthopedic CT protocols and state-of-the-art scanner hardware are used, radiation exposure can be decreased to a level just marginally higher than that of conventional preoperative radiography. Surgeons and radiologists should use similar terminology to avoid misunderstanding and inaccuracies in the transfer of preoperative planning.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24622927What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.