ArticleArthroplasty today2025
How Much Does a Computed Tomography-Based Mixed-Reality Navigation System Change Freehand Acetabular Component Position?
Article in Arthroplasty today, 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.
- Evaluating the Impact of Mixed-Reality Technology on Operating Room Time in Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Comparative 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study evaluates how a computed tomography-based mixed-reality (MR) navigation system impacts acetabular component orientation compared to freehand positioning in total hip arthroplasty. Methods: A series of 79 patients who underwent total hip arthroplasty utilizing a computed tomography-based MR navigation system were reviewed. The surgeon initially placed the acetabular cup freehand, attempting to achieve the preoperative plan, and this initial intraoperative orientation was recorded. The cup was then adjusted to the planned position. The difference between freehand and planned tilt-adjusted operative anteversion (OA) and inclination (OI) determined the navigation tool's impact. Results: The mean preoperative planned OA was 30.1 ± 2.0 (range: 25, 35) degrees, and the mean freehand intraoperative OA was 30.2 ± 9.1 (range: 4, 57) degrees ( Conclusions: Freehand acetabular component positioning in the lateral position is variable when attempting to execute patient-specific numerical cup orientation targets. Use of this navigation tool led the surgeon to correct more than 5 degrees in both OA and OI in roughly half of the hips.
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.