ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2025
Evaluation of cup placement accuracy in computer assisted total hip arthroplasty.
Article in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Imageless navigation demonstrates limited anteversion agreement with postoperative EOS assessment in lateral decubitus total hip arthroplasty.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Trial
- Femoral stem alignment and post-operative patient satisfaction: a retrospective analysis of total hip arthroplasty using computer-assisted equipment for placing cups.International orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Less inflammation and early functional recovery after total hip arthroplasty performed with robotic arm assistance than with computed tomography-based navigation: a propensity score-matched comparative study.International orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Comparison of accuracy of acetabular cup placement using manual versus robotic-assistance in the same patient cohort undergoing robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Observational
- A novel pinless augmented reality-based navigation system for total hip arthroplasty in the supine position: a comparative study of acetabular cup angle accuracy.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2026Article
- Comparative analysis of postoperative outcomes in men and women following total hip replacement surgery.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Article
- Acetabular component placement accuracy and short-term outcomes in total hip arthroplasty : comparison of robotic arm-assisted surgery system and an augmented reality-based portable navigation.Bone & joint open · 2026Article
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
backgroundTotal hip arthroplasty (THA) accuracy has improved significantly with various advances in computer-assisted equipment (CAE), including robotic systems, computed tomography (CT) navigation, and portable navigation. However, no studies have directly compared the accuracy of acetabular cup placement and its impact on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) across these three CAE systems. In this study, we aimed to evaluate cup placement accuracy and PROMs in THA using different CAE systems.
methodsThis retrospective analysis included 196 patients (202 hip joints) who underwent THA with three CAE systems from May 2021 to August 2023. Patients were categorized into the robotic system (73 hips), CT navigation (83 hips), and portable navigation (46 hips). Postoperative CT scans measured cup placement angles-radiographic inclination (RI) and radiographic anteversion (RA) -and compared them with preoperative target angles. Anterior-posterior (AP) cup position differences were evaluated by measuring the distance between the acetabular and cup center in the axial view of the postoperative CT scans. PROMs were evaluated using the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Hip Disease Evaluation Questionnaire (JHEQ) at 3 and 12 months.
resultsDemographic characteristics, including age, sex, primary disease, and Body Mass Index, were similar across groups. The robotic system exhibited significantly smaller deviations in ΔRI and ΔRA compared to CT navigation and portable navigation. AP cup position differences were also smaller in the robotic system versus portable navigation; however, the difference between the robotic and CT navigation systems was not statistically significant. Despite the superior precision of cup placement in the robotic system, no significant differences in JHEQ scores were observed among the groups at 3 and 12 months.
conclusionRobotic systems demonstrated superior accuracy in cup placement. However, short-term PROMs did not significantly differ, suggesting that PROMs may not solely depend on accurate cup placement. Future research should investigate additional factors influencing PROMs.
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.