ArticleSkeletal radiology2025
Scanogram leg length measurement after total hip arthroplasty: not all landmarks are created equal.
Article in Skeletal radiology, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the magnitude of post-arthroplasty leg length discrepancy (LLD) and incidence of clinically significant LLD measured on CT scanogram using a commonly used measurement method (from the acetabular apex to tibial plafond) to an alternative technique avoiding the use of the acetabular prosthesis as a landmark and to assess inter-observer and intra-rater reliability of the new technique. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this retrospective study, post-arthroplasty LLD measurements were conducted in 100 hips by two interpreters on CT scanogram scout views from the acetabular apex to the tibial plafond (AA-TP) and the inter-teardrop line to the tibial plafond (IT-TP). Aggregate means and proportions of clinically relevant LLD (≥ 10 mm) were compared between methods. Inter-rater reliability was calculated, and both interpreters repeated measurements on ten randomly selected patients to calculate intra-rater reliability.
resultsThe commonly used AA-TP technique overestimated LLD by 3.7 mm compared to the IT-TP technique. The odds of LLD measurement exceeding the clinically significant threshold of 10 mm were 3.8 times higher when using the AA-TP technique. Excellent inter-rater (ICC 0.984, 0.958) and intra-rater reliability (ICC > 0.9) were found for both techniques.
conclusionCT scanogram measurements from the acetabular apex to the tibial plafond often overestimate operative limb length due to reference landmarks in different axial planes. Measurements from the inter-teardrop line to the tibial plafond yield significantly lower LLD values, possibly reflecting actual limb length better. The authors recommend using the inter-teardrop line and tibial plafond as reference landmarks to improve LLD assessment accuracy post-arthroplasty.
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.