ArticleJournal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society2025
Automated Acetabular Defect Reconstruction and Analysis for Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Computational Modeling Study.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Artificial intelligence-driven preoperative CT 3D planning: a narrative review on improving the accuracy of acetabular cup angle and size in total hip arthroplasty.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Pooled it
- Anatomy-driven automated subsegmentation of pelvic and proximal femoral CT into clinically relevant subregions and landmarks.BMC medical imaging · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence Applications in Implant Positioning, Dislocation Risk Prediction, and Surgical Indications in Orthopaedic Surgery.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Current Uses for Medical Imaging With Orthopaedic Implant Technology.Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society · 2026Review
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
Abstract
Revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) involving large acetabular defects is associated with high early failure rates, primarily due to cup loosening. Most acetabular defect classification systems used in surgical planning are based on planar radiographs and do not encapsulate three-dimensional geometry and morphology of the acetabular defect. This study aimed to develop an automated computational modeling pipeline for rapid generation of three-dimensional acetabular bone defect geometry. The framework employed artificial neural network segmentation of preoperative pelvic computed tomography (CT) images and statistical shape model generation for defect reconstruction in 60 rTHA patients. Regional acetabular absolute defect volumes (ADV), relative defect volumes (RDV) and defect depths (DD) were calculated and stratified within Paprosky classifications. Defect geometries from the automated modeling pipeline were validated against manually reconstructed models and were found to have a mean dice coefficient of 0.827 and a mean relative volume error of 16.4%. The mean ADV, RDV and DD of classification groups generally increased with defect severity. Except for superior RDV and ADV between 3A and 2A defects, and anterior RDV and DD between 3B and 3A defects, statistically significant differences in ADV, RDV or DD were only found between 3B and 2B-2C defects (p < 0.05). Poor correlations observed between ADV, RDV, and DD within Paprosky classifications suggest that quantitative measures are not unique to each Paprosky grade. The automated modeling tools developed may be useful in surgical planning and computational modeling of rTHA.
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.