ArticleJournal of orthopaedics2024
Virtual range of motion is a safe and acceptable alternative to intra-operative manual range of motion testing in direct anterior robotic total hip arthroplasty.
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.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: In robotic total hip arthroplasty (THA), virtual range of motion (VROM) modeling allows the surgeon to account for spinopelvic motion and create an impingement-free range of motion that is patient-specific. The primary purpose of this study was to evaluate the risk of dislocation in patients undergoing direct anterior THA using VROM rather than manual ROM trialing. Methods: Prospectively collected data was reviewed retrospectively of all consecutive anterior THAs performed by a single fellowship-trained surgeon. No patients were excluded from the study. VROM identified bone and implant impingement, which was recorded in degrees of hip external rotation(ER) at 0° of hip extension (standing), and in degrees of hip internal rotation(IR) at 90° of hip flexion (sitting). No patients had manual ROM trialing performed. Dislocation events were recorded during the first 3 months of follow-up. 362 patients, with a mean age of 67 and mean BMI of 28.8, were included. Results: This cohort, including 154 patients (42.5%) with abnormal spinopelvic motion, demonstrated zero dislocations using VROM. The average ER impingement occurred at 60.9° ER (range 20-90°), and 50.8° IR (range 25-90°). Patients with ER impingement <55° had significantly less acetabular anteversion (16.4° ±3.3°, p < 0.001). Compared to the entire cohort, anteversion of the acetabulum was also decreased in the stuck-sitting subgroup (17.4° ±3.3°, p < 0.001) and increased in the stuck standing subgroup (20.5° ±3.6°, p < 0.001). ER impingement was a stronger predictor of acetabular anteversion than spinopelvic motion category (r = 0.458). Patients with ER impingement <45° (6.4%) or IR impingement <35° (6.6%) were "early impingers". Conclusion: In this cohort of anterior THA patients with a high proportion of abnormal spinopelvic motion, a technique utilizing only VROM produced no dislocations. An impingement-free zone of 45° ER standing and 35° IR sitting is recommended.
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.