ArticleOrthopaedic surgery2022
Validation of CT-Based Three-Dimensional Preoperative Planning in Comparison with Acetate Templating for Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty.
Article in Orthopaedic surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- AI-driven 3D virtual surgical planning in total hip arthroplasty: a machine learning approach for precision implant positioning and improved clinical outcomes.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Article
- Computerised Tomography based three dimensional planning predicts cup size with near-perfect accuracy in robotic total hip arthroplasty: a study of six hundred and nineteen hips.International orthopaedics · 2026Article
- AI-assisted 3D preoperative planning in primary total hip arthroplasty for secondary hip osteoarthritis: etiology-specific perioperative burden and early recovery in DDH versus post-septic sequelae.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Severity-dependent benefits of AI-assisted 3D planning in total hip arthroplasty: a Crowe I-IV subgroup and trend analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- The Effect of the Morphology of the Femur and Acetabulum in Dysplastic Hips on the Selection of Arthroplasty Femoral Implants: A Computer Tomography-Based Study.Orthopaedic surgery · 2024Article
- Artificial intelligence-based three-dimensional templating for total joint arthroplasty planning: a scoping review.International orthopaedics · 2024Article
- The Value of Computed Tomography Scan in Three-dimensional Planning and Intraoperative Navigation in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty.Hip & pelvis · 2024Review
- Two-stage multi-task deep learning framework for simultaneous pelvic bone segmentation and landmark detection from CT images.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2024Article
- The variability of CT scan protocols for total hip arthroplasty: a call for harmonisation.EFORT open reviews · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims to compare the accuracy of CT-based preoperative planning with that of acetate templating in predicting implant size, neck length, and neck cut length, and to evaluate the reproducibility of the two methods.
methodsThis prospective study was conducted between August 2020 and March 2021. Patients who underwent elective primary total hip arthroplasty by a single surgeon were assessed for eligibility. The included patients underwent both acetate templating and CT-based planning by two observers after the operation. Each observer conducted both acetate templating and CT-based planning twice for each case. The outcome measures included the following: (1) the accuracy of surgical planning in predicting implant size, calcar length, and neck length, which was defined as the difference between the planned size and length and the actual size and length; (2) reproducibility of the two planning techniques, which were assessed by inter-observer and intra-observer reliability analysis; (3) the influence of potential confounding factors on planning accuracy, which was evaluated using generalized estimating equations.
resultsA total of 57 cases were included in the study. CT-based planning was more accurate than acetate templating for predicting cup size (93% vs 79%, p < 0.001) and stem size (93% vs 75%, p < 0.001). When assessed by mean absolute difference, the comparison between acetate templating and CT-based planning was 4.28 mm vs 3.74 mm (p = 0.122) in predicting neck length and 3.05 mm vs 2.93 mm (p = 0.731) in predicting neck cut length. In the inter-observer reliability analysis, an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.790 was achieved for predicting cup size, and an ICC of 0.966 was achieved for predicting stem size using CT-based planning. In terms of intra-observer reliability, Observer 1 achieved an ICC of 0.803 for predicting cup size and 0.965 for predicting stem size in CT-based planning. Observer 2 achieved ICC values of 0.727 and 0.959 for predicting cup and stem sizes, respectively. The average planning time was 6.48 ± 1.55 min for CT-based planning and 6.12 ± 1.40 min for acetate templating (p = 0.015).
conclusionThe CT-based planning system is more accurate than acetate templating for predicting implant size and has good reproducibility in total hip arthroplasty.
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.