ArticleJournal of orthopaedics2024
Intrawound navigation for custom-made acetabular component in revision total hip arthroplasty: Does it improve implant positioning?
Article in Journal of orthopaedics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The number of hip revisions makes up over 12 % of all hip arthroplasty cases. For large acetabular defects custom-made acetabular component (CMAC) are required. Rates of malposition of CMACs are highly variable. Our study aims to develop a readily available, reliable and easily reproducible method for positioning of the CMAC. We tried to answer the following questions: 1) how often does the postoperative position of the implant corresponds to the planned one; 2) is the use of intrawound navigation improve the precision of acetabular implant position. Methods: This was a single-center observational cohort study and included two groups: the experimental group (use of 3D navigation for implant positioning) and the control group (no navigation use). All the patients were scheduled for acetabular revision surgery with custom-made 3D-printed acetabular components. All surgeries took place between 2016 and 2020. Results: 25 % freehand group, 85 % implants in the navigation group matched accuracy positioning criteria. The relative risk of malposition was significantly higher without the intraoperative navigation, with 5 times greater risk of malpositioning in the freehand group versus the navigation group. Conclusion: Navigation method allows planning of the implant and reamer sizes for optimal bone preparation and preservation. It provides easier implantation of the complex implant with reliable, stable primary fixation in massive bone defects. It reliably decreases malposition rate, allowing for implant placement in a proper position with sufficient bone-implant contact. Further research is needed to determine the relationship between CMAC position accuracy and long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes.
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.