ReviewEFORT open reviews2023
The variability of CT scan protocols for total hip arthroplasty: a call for harmonisation.
Review in EFORT open reviews, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- CT protocols for lower limb arthroplasty: the Stanmore hip and knee protocols.EFORT open reviews · 2026Review
- AI-Assisted 3D Planning of CT Parameters for Personalized Femoral Prosthesis Selection in Total Hip Arthroplasty.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2025Article
- Planning Accuracy and Stem Offset Assessment in Digital Two-Dimensional Versus Three-Dimensional Planning in Cementless Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
CT is the principal imaging modality used for the pre-operative 3D planning and assessment of total hip arthroplasty (THA). The image quality offered by CT has a radiation penalty to the patient. Higher than necessary radiation exposure is of particular concern when imaging young patients and women of childbearing age, due to the greater risk of radiation-induced cancer in this group. A harmonised low-dose CT protocol is needed, evidenced by the huge variability in the 17 protocols reviewed. The majority of the protocols were incomplete, leading to uncertainty among radiographers when performing the scans. Only three protocols (20%) were optimised for both 'field of view' and image acquisition parameters. 10 protocols (60%) were optimised for 'field of view' only. These protocols included imaging of the relevant landmarks in the bony pelvis in addition to the knees - the reference for femoral anteversion. CT parameters, including the scanner kilovoltage (kV), milliamperage-time product (mAs) and slice thickness, must be optimised with a 'field of view' that includes the relevant bony landmarks. The recommended kV and mAs values were very wide ranging from 100 to 150 and from 100 to 250, respectively. The large variability that exists amongst the CT protocols illustrates the need for a more consistent low-dose CT protocol for the planning of THA. This must provide an optimal balance between image quality and radiation dose to the patient. Current CT scanners do not allow for measurements of functional pelvic orientation and additional upright imaging modalities are needed to augment them.
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.