ArticleInternational orthopaedics2025
"Intra-operative assessment of leg length discrepancy with anterior approach total hip replacement: a comparison between standard table, position table with and without intra-operative radiographs".
Article in International orthopaedics, 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePost-operative LLD is a major concern after THA. The anterior approach on a standard table allows surgeons for a direct control of the leg length. Intra-operative radiography (IR) helps in assessment of hip biomechanics and anatomic parameters. The aim of this study is to evaluate the LLD after THA through anterior approach with or without a position table and with or without the use of intra-operative radiographs. The hypothesis is that leg length may be better control when IR and a standard table are used.
methodsThis is a single-centre retrospective comparative cohort study of three matched groups of 80 patients receiving anterior approach THA with three different techniques (Group A: positioning table with IR; Group B: standard table with IR; Group C: standard table without IR). Pre-operative and post-operative LLD was calculated. Age, sex, BMI, acetabular cup and femoral stem size, operative time, and blood loss were recorded.
resultsIn Group A, 15 patients (19%) had a LLD greater than 5 mm, and two patients (2,5%) had a LLD greater than 10 mm. In Group B, 20 patients (25%) had a LLD greater than 5 mm, and two patients (2,5%) had a LLD greater than 10 mm. In Group C, 16 patients (20%) had a LLD greater than 5 mm, and three patients (3,7%) had a LLD greater than 10 mm. No statistically significant differences were found for LLD > 5 mm, for LLD > 10 mm, nor for the mean LLD between the three groups (p > 0.05). Mean operative time was statistically longer in Group B (p < 0.05).
conclusionNeither the use of a standard/positioning table neither the use of IR seemed to be superior in restoring leg length after anterior approach THA. Together with the contradictory results in literature, findings of the current study indicate that no technique is clearly superior to one other and surgeons' experience may play the most relevant role.
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.