ArticleScientific reports2022
Comparison between two- and three-dimensional methods for offset measurements after total hip arthroplasty.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Accuracy of two different imageless navigation systems for leg length and global offset change in total hip arthroplasty: A comparison using two-dimensional radiographic and three-dimensional CT-based evaluation.International orthopaedics · 2026Article
- A Hybrid Automatic Model for Circle Detection in X-Ray Imagery: A Case Study on Hip Prosthesis Wear.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- 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
- Article
- Relationship Among Global Femoral Offset, Leg Lengthening, and Tibiofemoral Rotation After Total Hip Arthroplasty.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Impact of Hip Rotation Angle Following Total Hip Arthroplasty with Leg Lengthening.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Relating total hip replacement and acetabular cup positioning with outcome: A systematic review.Bioinformation · 2025Article
- The Sum of the Leg Length Discrepancy and the Difference in Global Femoral Offset Is Equal to That of the Contralateral Intact Side and Improves Postoperative Outcomes after Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Three-Dimensional Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Two- and three-dimensional measurements of leg length change using an accelerometer-based portable navigation system in total hip arthroplasty.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2023Article
- Accuracy analysis of artificial intelligence-assisted three-dimensional preoperative planning in total hip replacement.Joint diseases and related surgery · 2023Article
- The association of postoperative global femoral offset with total hip arthroplasty outcomes.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Minimum 10-Year Results of Modular Metal-On-Metal Total Hip Arthroplasty.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare acetabular offset, femoral offset, and global offset measurements obtained after total hip arthroplasty (THA) between a two-dimensional (2D) method and a three-dimensional (3D) method. The subjects were 89 patients with unilateral osteoarthritis who underwent primary THA at our institution. Acetabular, femoral, and global offsets were measured by each of the 2D and 3D methods in native and implanted hips. In native hips, mean acetabular, femoral, and global offsets were 32.4 ± 3.3, 32.7 ± 4.5, 65.1 ± 5.7 mm, respectively, by the 2D method, and 32.3 ± 3.1, 38.1 ± 4.0, 70.4 ± 4.9 mm, respectively, by the 3D method. In implanted hips, mean acetabular, femoral, and global offsets were 27.6 ± 4.1, 33.8 ± 7.8, 61.4 ± 8.5 mm, respectively, by the 2D method, and 27.6 ± 3.9, 41.8 ± 6.2, 69.4 ± 7.2 mm, respectively, by the 3D method. There was significant difference in femoral and global offsets between the 2D and 3D methods in both native and implanted hips. Comparison of the 2D and 3D methods for evaluation of acetabular, femoral, and global offsets after THA clarified the usefulness and accuracy of the 3D method.
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.