ArticleInternational journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery2022
The "true" acetabular anteversion angle (AV angle): 2D CT versus 3D model.
Article in International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
- A three-dimensional digital study on clinical anatomy of the acetabulum in elderly population aged 65-84 years in inner Mongolia, China.BMC geriatrics · 2026Article
- Unveiling the Hidden Links: Anatomical and Radiological Insights into Primary Hip Osteoarthritis.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Article
- Construction of a predictive nomogram for functional recovery after Bernese periacetabular osteotomy.Frontiers in surgery · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDifferent factors can lead to inconsistencies in measurement for the acetabular version using 2D axial CT-cuts. We have defined a "true" anteversion angle (AV angle) in the physiological position of the pelvis in 3D with the largest European population measured to our knowledge. MATERIAL AND
methodsWe analyzed 258 hemipelvises and created 3D models. We compared the results of our AV angle 3D method with the cross-sectional cuts of the same acetabula. We included factors like side, sex, body mass index, and patient positioning.
resultsOverall, the mean (SD) AV angle was 16.1 (5.9)° as measured with the 3D method and 22.0 (6.0)° as measured with the 2D method (p < 0.0001). Measured with both the 3D and the 2D method, the AV angle was significantly larger in female than in male individuals (p < 0.0001). In the 2D method, the AV angle estimation was influenced by the pelvic tilt.
conclusionWe propose a more accurate method for the measurement of the AV angle of the acetabulum in a 3D model that is not influenced by patient positioning or pelvic tilt. We provide a computational model that will facilitate operative decisions and improve preoperative planning. We confirm that 3D measurement should be the gold standard in measuring the acetabular anteversion.
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.