Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34775845›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of international medical research2021

Value of preoperative three-dimensional planning software (AI-HIP) in primary total hip arthroplasty: a retrospective study.

Xuzhuang Ding, Bingshi Zhang, Wenao Li, Jia Huo, Sikai Liu, Tao Wu, Yongtai Han

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of international medical research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. AI-assisted direct anterior approachFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

7 authors.

Xuzhuang DingDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, the Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, Hebei, P.R. China.
Bingshi ZhangDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, the Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, Hebei, P.R. China.
Wenao LiDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, the Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, Hebei, P.R. China.
Jia HuoDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, the Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, Hebei, P.R. China.
Sikai LiuDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, the Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, Hebei, P.R. China.
Tao WuDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, the Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, Hebei, P.R. China.
Yongtai HanDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, the Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, Hebei, P.R. China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0401-4210

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveWe performed a retrospective study to compare the accuracy of preoperative planning using three-dimensional AI-HIP software and traditional two-dimensional manual templating to predict the size and position of prostheses. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of AI-HIP in preoperative planning for primary total hip arthroplasty.

methodsIn total, 316 hips treated from April 2019 to June 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. A typical preoperative planning process for patients was implemented to compare the accuracy of the two preoperative planning methods with respect to prosthetic size and position. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used to evaluate the homogeneity between the actual prosthetic size and position and the preoperative planning method.

resultsWhen AI-HIP software and manual templating were used for preoperative planning, the stem agreement was 87.7% and 58.9%, respectively, and the cup agreement was 94.0% and 65.2%, respectively. The results showed that when AI-HIP software was used, an extremely high level of consistency (ICC > 0.95) was achieved for the femoral stem size, cup size, and femoral osteotomy level (ICC = 0.972, 0.962, and 0.961, respectively).

conclusionAI-HIP software showed excellent reliability for predicting the component size and implant position in primary total hip arthroplasty.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, HipHip ProsthesisArtificial IntelligenceHumansPreoperative CareReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesSoftwareAI-HIP softwareartificial intelligenceimplantpreoperative planningthree-dimensional planningTotal hip arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID34775845
PMCPMC8597071

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.