ArticleInternational journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery2025
Automation in tibial implant loosening detection using deep-learning segmentation.
Article in International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery, 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.
- Artificial Intelligence Applications in Implant Positioning, Dislocation Risk Prediction, and Surgical Indications in Orthopaedic Surgery.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePatients with recurrent complaints after total knee arthroplasty may suffer from aseptic implant loosening. Current imaging modalities do not quantify looseness of knee arthroplasty components. A recently developed and validated workflow quantifies the tibial component displacement relative to the bone from CT scans acquired under valgus and varus load. The 3D analysis approach includes segmentation and registration of the tibial component and bone. In the current approach, the semi-automatic segmentation requires user interaction, adding complexity to the analysis. The research question is whether the segmentation step can be fully automated while keeping outcomes indifferent.
methodsIn this study, different deep-learning (DL) models for fully automatic segmentation are proposed and evaluated. For this, we employ three different datasets for model development (20 cadaveric CT pairs and 10 cadaveric CT scans) and evaluation (72 patient CT pairs). Based on the performance on the development dataset, the final model was selected, and its predictions replaced the semi-automatic segmentation in the current approach. Implant displacement was quantified by the rotation about the screw-axis, maximum total point motion, and mean target registration error.
resultsThe displacement parameters of the proposed approach showed a statistically significant difference between fixed and loose samples in a cadaver dataset, as well as between asymptomatic and loose samples in a patient dataset, similar to the outcomes of the current approach. The methodological error calculated on a reproducibility dataset showed values that were not statistically significant different between the two approaches. The results of the proposed and current approaches showed excellent reliability for one and three operators on two datasets.
conclusionThe conclusion is that a full automation in knee implant displacement assessment is feasible by utilizing a DL-based segmentation model while maintaining the capability of distinguishing between fixed and loose implants.
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.