ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2024
Bone support correlation of X-Ray and CT for a new PE-glenoid.
Article in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe radiographic evaluation of novel cementless anatomic polyethylene (PE) glenoid components featuring a titanium-coated back is still unclear. This study explores potential radiolucent lines (RLL) between the radiopaque titanium layer and sclerotic convex reamed bone in an intermodal comparison analysis with computed tomography (CT) scans. MATERIALS AND
methodsEight RM pressfit vitamys glenoids (Mathys
resultsThe inter-rater (Cohen's = 0.643) and intra-rater reliability (Cohen's = 0.714) were good. The overall evaluation showed a significant agreement between (NO) RLL on X-ray and (NO) GAP on CT (p < 0.001). The - 10-degree ml projection showed good agreement between CT and X-ray (Cohen's = 0.628). Adequate agreement was shown at 0 degrees (Cohen's = 0.386), + 10 degrees ml (Cohen's = 0.338), and + 20 degrees cc (Cohen's = 0.327). Compared to the scenario DL = NO RLL, the true a.p. view showed better sensitivity when the DL is classified as RLL. Conversely, the true a.p. view demonstrated both better specificity and significant agreement between the X-ray and CT findings in scenario when DL = No RLL.
conclusionStandard true a. p. projections are reliable in ruling out gaps when no RLL or DL is visible and the detection of RLL shows high intermodal agreement. Varying agreement across tilting angles emphasizes the importance of a comprehensive approach in evaluating bone support and CT is indispensable for a scientifically reliable assessment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III Treatment Study.
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.