Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30984776›Full record

ArticleBioMed research international2019

Value of 3D Preoperative Planning for Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty Based on Biplanar Weightbearing Radiographs.

Y Knafo, F Houfani, B Zaharia, F Egrise, I Clerc-Urmès, D Mainard

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Deep learning-based 2D/3D registration of an atlas to biplanar X-ray images.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2022
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Y KnafoService de Chirurgie Orthopédique, Traumatologique et Arthroscopique, Hôpital Central, CHRU Nancy, Av de Lattre de Tassigny, 54000 Nancy, France.
F HoufaniService de Chirurgie Orthopédique, Traumatologique et Arthroscopique, Hôpital Central, CHRU Nancy, Av de Lattre de Tassigny, 54000 Nancy, France.
B ZahariaService de Chirurgie Orthopédique, Traumatologique et Arthroscopique, Hôpital Central, CHRU Nancy, Av de Lattre de Tassigny, 54000 Nancy, France.
F EgriseService de Chirurgie Orthopédique, Traumatologique et Arthroscopique, Hôpital Central, CHRU Nancy, Av de Lattre de Tassigny, 54000 Nancy, France.
I Clerc-UrmèsPôle des Structures de Soutien à la Recherche, CHRU Nancy, Av de Lattre de Tassigny, 54000 Nancy, France.
D MainardService de Chirurgie Orthopédique, Traumatologique et Arthroscopique, Hôpital Central, CHRU Nancy, Av de Lattre de Tassigny, 54000 Nancy, France.ORCID 0000-0003-1944-1538

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overArthroplasty, Replacement, HipFemaleHip ProsthesisHumansImaging, Three-DimensionalMaleMiddle AgedOsteoarthritisPreoperative CareProsthesis DesignRadiographySoftwareTomography, X-Ray Computed

Identifiers

PMID30984776
PMCPMC6431504

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.