ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2021
Is analog preoperative planning still applicable?-comparison of accuracy of analog and computer preoperative planning methods in total hip arthroplasty.
Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy of a novel, fluoroscopy-based robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty system in restoring limb length and offset.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2025Article
- Article
- Digital Templating of Hip Arthroplasty Using Microsoft PowerPoint: A Pilot Study with Technical Details.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Determining the accuracy of preoperative total hip replacement 2D templating using the mediCADJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2022Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPreoperative planning is an integral part of total hip arthroplasty and has a significant impact on surgical technique and clinical outcome. The variety of types and sizes of endoprosthesis components makes the procedure more demanding and generates a need for accurate preoperative planning. The objective of this study was to analyze an analog method of preoperative planning of primary total hip arthroplasty based on templates overlaying on preoperative radiograms and compare its accuracy for predicting the size, both the stem and cup, with computer planning methods.
methodsA retrospective cohort study based on 360 X-ray images of hip joints in 348 patients qualified for total hip arthroplasty between 2018 and 2019. The study group consisted of 136 men and 212 women, with an average age of 65 years (56 to 85 years). Material included both cementless and cemented endoprostheses.
resultsIn the analyzed material, the accuracy of cup planning using the analog method was 85% (P<0.001) and 77% (P<0.001) in the planning of stem size. However, using the computer method, planning accuracy was 82% (P<0.001) for the cup and 72% (P<0.001) for the stem.
conclusionsBoth methods of preoperative planning remain effective. The analog method of preoperative planning is simple, precise, and repeatable in choosing the type and size of endoprosthesis components with an accuracy of 85% and 77% for the cup and stem respectively. The accuracy of planning depends on the type of endoprosthesis and in the case of the cemented endoprosthesis, it is lower than in cementless.
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.