ArticleArthroplasty today2024
Techniques and Technologies for the Intraoperative Assessment of Component Positioning, Leg Lengths, and Offset in Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review.
Article in Arthroplasty today, 2024. 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.
- Clinical feasibility of camera-type X-ray for intraoperative imaging of hip arthroplasty: a pilot study.Skeletal radiology · 2026Article
- Anatomical landmarks and intraoperative "safe zone" for precise acetabular prosthesis placement in total hip arthroplasty for developmental dysplasia of the hip.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- Assessment of "Spin" in the Abstracts of Systematic Reviews in Leading Arthroplasty Journals Over the Past 10 Years: A Cross-Sectional Methodological Study.Arthroplasty today · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Many techniques and technologies exist for the intraoperative assessment of component positioning, leg lengths, and offset in total hip arthroplasty, but with limited comparative data. We conducted a systematic review of the available literature to evaluate the range of techniques and technologies for the intraoperative assessment of component position as well as leg lengths and offset in terms of accuracy, precision, surgical time, cost, and relationship to clinical outcomes. Methods: A comprehensive search of the Embase and Medline databases from 1974 to 2023 was performed. We included controlled or comparative prospective clinical studies. Cochrane's risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials and Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies - of Interventions tools were used by 2 independent reviewers to evaluate each study for risk of bias. We conducted both qualitative and quantitative analyses of the studies included. However, a meta-analysis was deemed not to be feasible due to heterogeneity. Results: Our review included 25 studies with 52 intraoperative techniques and technologies. Mechanical guides and computerized navigation were most frequently evaluated in the included studies. Computerized navigation systems consistently showed the greatest accuracy and precision across all measures, at the cost of longer mean operative time. In contrast, freehand techniques demonstrated the poorest accuracy and precision. Insufficient data were found to reach any meaningful conclusions in terms of differences in overall surgical cost or clinical outcomes. Conclusions: Evidence shows that computerized navigation systems are most accurate and precise in positioning components during total hip arthroplasty. Further research is needed to determine their health and economic impact and whether the accuracy and precision of navigated techniques are justified in terms of clinical 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.