Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35532010›Full record

ArticleJournal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society2023

Evaluation of automated radiostereometric image registration in total knee arthroplasty utilizing a synthetic-based and a CT-based volumetric model.

Emil Toft Petersen, Tobias Dahl Vind, Jonathan Hugo Jürgens-Lahnstein, Rasmus Christensen, Sepp de Raedt, Annemarie Brüel, Søren Rytter, Michael Skipper Andersen, Maiken Stilling

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

9 authors.

Emil Toft PetersenUniversity Clinic for Hand, Hip and Knee Surgery, Holstebro Central Hospital, Holstebro, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-1697-8778
Tobias Dahl VindDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-4783-649X
Jonathan Hugo Jürgens-LahnsteinDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-3329-096X
Rasmus ChristensenDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-0704-8934
Sepp de RaedtAutoRSA Research Group, Orthopaedic Research Unit, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Annemarie BrüelDepartment of Biomedicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-4833-0888
Søren RytterDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Michael Skipper AndersenDepartment of Materials and Production, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0001-8275-9472
Maiken StillingDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-4530-2075

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Radiostereometic analysis (RSA) is an accurate method for rigid body pose (position and orientation) in three-dimensional space. Traditionally, RSA is based on insertion of periprosthetic tantalum markers and manual implant contour selection which limit clinically application. We propose an automated image registration technique utilizing digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRR) of computed tomography (CT) volumetric bone models (autorsa-bone) as a substitute for tantalum markers. Furthermore, an automated synthetic volumetric representation of total knee arthroplasty implant models (autorsa-volume) to improve previous silhouette-projection methods (autorsa-surface). As reference, we investigated the accuracy of implanted tantalum markers (marker) or a conventional manually contour-based method (mbrsa) for the femur and tibia. The data are presented as mean (standard deviation). The autorsa-bone method displayed similar accuracy of -0.013 (0.075) mm compared to the gold standard method (marker) of -0.013 (0.085). The autorsa-volume with 0.034 (0.106) mm did not markedly improve the autorsa-surface with 0.002 (0.129) mm, and none of these reached the mbrsa method of -0.009 (0.094) mm. In conclusion, marker-free RSA is feasible with similar accuracy as gold standard utilizing DRR and CT obtained volumetric bone models. Furthermore, utilizing synthetic generated volumetric implant models could not improve the silhouette-based method. However, with a slight loss of accuracy the autorsa methods provide a feasible automated alternative to the semi-automated method.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, KneeKnee ProsthesisRadiostereometric AnalysisTantalumTomography, X-Ray ComputedTantalumautomatedimage registrationradiostereometryRSAtotal knee arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID35532010
PMCPMC10084430

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.