ArticleInternational journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery2018
Factors related to disagreement in implant size between preoperative CT-based planning and the actual implants used intraoperatively for total hip arthroplasty.
Article in International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Three-dimensional and artificial intelligence-assisted preoperative templating in total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Arthroplasty (London, England) · 2026Review
- Comparison of traditional and robotic size prediction methods and stem positioning outcomes following prediction discrepancies in hip arthroplasty.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- The variability of CT scan protocols for total hip arthroplasty: a call for harmonisation.EFORT open reviews · 2023Review
- Predicting Implant Size in Total Hip Arthroplasty.Arthroplasty today · 2022Article
- Validation of CT-Based Three-Dimensional Preoperative Planning in Comparison with Acetate Templating for Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty.Orthopaedic surgery · 2022Article
- Utility of a novel integrated deep convolutional neural network for the segmentation of hip joint from computed tomography images in the preoperative planning of total hip arthroplasty.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2022Article
- Three-dimensional pre-operative planning of primary hip arthroplasty: a systematic literature review.EFORT open reviews · 2020Review
- Can 3D surgical planning and patient specific instrumentation reduce hip implant inventory? A prospective study.3D printing in medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIn total hip arthroplasty, prediction of the optimal implant size is important in order to prevent perioperative complications. However, it is not easy to achieve complete agreement between the planned size and the actual size required appropriate implant fit. No previous report has adequately discussed the factors related to mismatch between predicted and actual implant sizes. The purpose was to report the results of a single surgeon case series of patients undergoing THA using computed tomography (CT)-based templating and the possible factors related to implant size mismatch.
methodsThe study included 141 hips of 126 patients who underwent primary total hip arthroplasty with CT-based navigation. We retrospectively reviewed the planned and actual implant sizes used in these patients. Cup position, cup orientation and stem alignment were evaluated as surgical factors that could possibly be related to mismatch in implant size. Cortical index and canal flare index were also evaluated as morphological factors.
resultsThe final inclusions in this study were 124 hips of 111 patients including 82% of those were developmental dysplasia of the hip. Agreement in implant size was seen for 94.4% of cups and 85.5% of stems, respectively. No related factors were found for cup size mismatch. Stem alignment in the sagittal and coronal planes showed significant differences between the size-matched stem group and the smaller stem group ([Formula: see text]).
conclusionsImplant size agreement rates between the three-dimensional plan and the actual implants used intraoperatively were high. However, broach alignment should be checked in the coronal and sagittal planes if the intraoperative broach is smaller than the planned size.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.