ArticleBioMed research international2019
Value of 3D Preoperative Planning for Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty Based on Biplanar Weightbearing Radiographs.
Article in BioMed research international, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 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
21 citing papers in PubMed.
- Three-dimensional and artificial intelligence-assisted preoperative templating in total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Arthroplasty (London, England) · 2026Review
- Towards an Automated Computational Workflow to Assess Primary Stability in Total Hip Arthroplasty.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Accuracy Verification of a Computed Tomography-Based Navigation System for Total Hip Arthroplasty in Severe Hip Dysplasia: A Simulation Study Using 3D-Printed Bone Models of Crowe Types II, III, and IV.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Planning Accuracy and Stem Offset Assessment in Digital Two-Dimensional Versus Three-Dimensional Planning in Cementless Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- How does the position of the pelvis and femur influence the selection of prosthesis size during 2D preoperative planning for total hip arthroplasty?BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024Article
- Precision of Cup Positioning Using a Novel Computed Tomography Based Navigation System in Total Hip Arthroplasty.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
- An Intraoperative Method to Minimize Leg Length Discrepancy in Anterior Minimally Invasive Total Hip Arthroplasty-A Prospective Study.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Article
- The Value of Computed Tomography Scan in Three-dimensional Planning and Intraoperative Navigation in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty.Hip & pelvis · 2024Review
- The quest for optimal femoral torsion angle measurements: a comparative advanced 3D study defining the femoral neck axis.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2023Article
- Calibration of magnification in two-dimensional low-dose full-body imaging for preoperative planning of total hip arthroplasty.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2023Article
- Short-term outcome of artificial intelligence-assisted preoperative three-dimensional planning of total hip arthroplasty for developmental dysplasia of the hip compared to traditional surgery.Joint diseases and related surgery · 2023Article
- Three-Dimensional Preoperative Planning Software for Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Article
- Overall Accuracy of Radiological Digital Planning for Total Hip Arthroplasty in a Specialized Orthopaedics Hospital.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- A Comparison of Radiographic Outcomes after Total Hip Arthroplasty between the Direct Lateral Approach and Posterior Lateral Approach with EOS 2D/3D X-Ray Imaging System.Orthopaedic surgery · 2023Article
- Imaging in Hip Arthroplasty Management-Part 1: Templating: Past, Present and Future.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Deep learning-based 2D/3D registration of an atlas to biplanar X-ray images.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2022Article
- 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
- Usefulness of a Simple Preoperative Planning Technique using Plain X-rays for Direct Anterior Approach for Total Hip Arthroplasty.Orthopaedic surgery · 2021Article
- Three-dimensional pre-operative planning of primary hip arthroplasty: a systematic literature review.EFORT open reviews · 2020Review
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
Two-dimensional (2D) planning on standard radiographs for total hip arthroplasty may not be sufficiently accurate to predict implant sizing or restore leg length and femoral offset, whereas 3D planning avoids magnification and projection errors. Furthermore, weightbearing measures are not available with computed tomography (CT) and leg length and offset are rarely checked postoperatively using any imaging modality. Navigation can usually achieve a surgical plan precisely, but the choice of that plan remains key, which is best guided by preoperative planning. The study objectives were therefore to (1) evaluate the accuracy of stem/cup size prediction using dedicated 3D planning software based on biplanar radiographic imaging under weightbearing and (2) compare the preplanned leg length and femoral offset with the postoperative result. This single-centre, single-surgeon prospective study consisted of a cohort of 33 patients operated on over 24 months. The routine clinical workflow consisted of preoperative biplanar weightbearing imaging, 3D surgical planning, navigated surgery to execute the plan, and postoperative biplanar imaging to verify the radiological outcomes in 3D weightbearing. 3D planning was performed with the dedicated hipEOS® planning software to determine stem and cup size and position, plus 3D anatomical and functional parameters, in particular variations in leg length and femoral offset. Component size planning accuracy was 94% (31/33) within one size for the femoral stem and 100% (33/33) within one size for the acetabular cup. There were no significant differences between planned versus implanted femoral stem size or planned versus measured changes in leg length or offset. Cup size did differ significantly, tending towards implanting one size larger when there was a difference. Biplanar radiographs plus hipEOS planning software showed good reliability for predicting implant size, leg length, and femoral offset and postoperatively provided a check on the navigated surgery. Compared to previous studies, the predictive results were better than 2D planning on conventional radiography and equal to 3D planning on CT images, with lower radiation dose, and in the weightbearing position.
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.