Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40318073›Full record

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.

Daniel Hopkins, Stuart A Callary, L Bogdan Solomon, Peter V S Lee, David C Ackland

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Current Uses for Medical Imaging With Orthopaedic Implant Technology.Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society · 2026
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Daniel HopkinsDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0009-0000-8094-3145
Stuart A CallaryCentre for Orthopaedic and Trauma Research, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2892-5238
L Bogdan SolomonCentre for Orthopaedic and Trauma Research, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Peter V S LeeDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
David C AcklandDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0559-7569

Funding

The study was supported by the Australian Research Council (FT200100098 and IC180100024).
6 · The paper itself

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

AcetabulumArthroplasty, Replacement, HipAdultAgedAged, 80 and overComputer SimulationFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedReoperationTomography, X-Ray Computedartificial neural networkbiomechanical modelhip surgerystatistical shape modeling

Identifiers

PMID40318073
PMCPMC12159582

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.