ArticleJournal of experimental orthopaedics2025
High agreement of three-dimensional lower limb alignment analysis between a novel cone-beam CT and multislice CT.
Article in Journal of experimental orthopaedics, 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.
- High agreement of three-dimensional lower limb alignment analysis between a novel cone-beam CT and multislice CT.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Lower limb alignment analysis based on three-dimensional (3D) models has become integral to preoperative planning. However, 3D models are typically reconstructed from data acquired in non-weight-bearing conditions. This study aims to validate a cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) for a three-dimensional assessment of the lower limb in upright position. Methods: A fixed phantom limb, derived from supine CT data, was built and scanned five times by two different imaging modalities (CBCT and multislice computed tomography (MSCT)) in the upright and supine positions. A surface comparison between the 3D models generated from CBCT and MSCT was conducted. Furthermore, two observers performed alignment analysis by determining 31 landmarks on each 3D model. Intra- and interobserver variability of the landmarks and root mean square error (RMSE) of angles, axes, patellofemoral values, and leg lengths were evaluated. Results: The surface comparison revealed excellent agreement, with deviations primarily confined within the range of ±0.2 mm. Intra- and interobserver variability of all landmarks was less than 5 mm in both imaging modalities. The mean precision of all landmarks in CBCT and MSCT showed no statistically significant difference between both modalities (1.38 mm [SD 0.63] vs. 1.46 mm [SD 0.74], Conclusion: CBCT and MSCT showed a high level of agreement in 3D imaging of the lower limb and assessing alignment and joint level metrics. By offering 3D imaging under physiological load, CBCT may have the potential to improve preoperative planning in clinical use. Level of Evidence: N/A.
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.