ArticleArthroplasty today2021
Mechanical and Anatomical Alignment Guide Techniques Are Superior to Freehand in Achieving Target Orientation of an Acetabular Component.
Article in Arthroplasty today, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Acetabular cup positioning in primary routine total hip arthroplasty-a review of current concepts and technologies.Arthroplasty (London, England) · 2023Review
- Determining the orientation of acetabular prosthesis in total hip arthroplasty by refering to the anatomical landmarker of acetabular notches.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Achieving Precise Cup Positioning in Direct Anterior Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Narrative Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAchieving accurate and consistent acetabular component orientation remains a major challenge in total hip arthroplasty.
methodsWe used a pelvic model to compare freehand techniques vs mechanical and anatomical alignment guides in achieving a target operative inclination (OI) and operative anteversion (OA). Thirty subjects comprising consultant orthopedic surgeons, orthopedic trainees, and nonsurgical staff positioned an acetabular component in a pelvic model using 3 different methods for guiding inclination and another 3 for guiding version.
resultsUsing either a standard mechanical alignment guide (MAG) or a spirit level MAG technique eliminated outliers from target OI, while the freehand method resulted in 46.7% of measurements outside the OI target range. The spirit level MAG technique significantly outperformed the standard MAG technique in median unsigned deviation from target OI (0.8° vs 2.1°,
conclusionsEven in an idealized in vitro model, a wide range of OI and OA is seen with the freehand technique of cup placement by subjects of all levels of surgical experience. Using either a standard MAG or a spirit level MAG reduces deviations in target OI, with the spirit level MAG method yielding the best accuracy. Using the transverse acetabular ligament to guide cup anteversion yields more accurate OA.
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.