Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41287575›Full record

ArticleActa orthopaedica2025

Precision evaluation of 2 CT-based radiostereometric analysis systems in a cadaver study.

Maaike R De Bondt, Frank-David Øhrn, Lars H W Engseth, Anselm Schulz, Bart L Kaptein, Stephan M Röhrl, Petra J C Heesterbeek

Abstract readEvaluation StudyComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Acta orthopaedica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

7 authors.

Maaike R De BondtResearch Department, Sint Maartenskliniek, Nijmegen; Department of Biomechanical Engineering, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands. m.debondt@maartenskliniek.nl.
Frank-David ØhrnOrthopaedic Department, Nordmøre and Romsdal Hospital, Møre and Romsdal Hospital Trust, Kristiansund; Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Department of Neuromedicine and Movement Science (INB), NTNU Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-7880-8101
Lars H W EngsethDivision of Orthopaedic Surgery, Oslo University Hospital Ullevål (CIRRO), Oslo; Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0001-8254-5765
Anselm SchulzFaculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo; Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Oslo University Hospital Ullevål, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0001-7406-5497
Bart L KapteinDepartment of Orthopaedics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-8772-9985
Stephan M RöhrlDivision of Orthopaedic Surgery, Oslo University Hospital Ullevål (CIRRO), Oslo; Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0001-5784-2055
Petra J C HeesterbeekResearch Department, Sint Maartenskliniek, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-2873-8907

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeTo address the limitations of radiostereometric imaging and to eliminate the need for intraoperative marker placement, CT-based radiostereometric analysis (CT-RSA) software systems have been developed. We aimed to evaluate the precision of a novel CT-RSA software system, V3MA, against an established CT-RSA software system, CTMA, while also examining the impact of CT scanner model on precision.

methods7 CT scans per scanner (Siemens SOMATOM Force and GE Revolution) of a porcine cadaver with a knee implant were used for pairwise comparisons. By aligning paired CT scans, the translation (mm), rotation (°), and maximum total point motion (MTPM, mm) of the tibial implant with respect to the bone were computed. V3MA aligned the scans using the voxel gray values of the bone and implant, whereas CTMA aligned the surface points of the bone and implant. The precision of both software systems and the effect of both scanner models were investigated using paired data in a linear mixed model.

resultsBoth software systems resulted in a similar MTPM (contrast V3MA-CTMA -0.002 mm, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.015 to 0.011; V3MA: 0.09 mm; CTMA: 0.10 mm), indicating comparable precision using a minimal important difference of 0.10 mm. Using Siemens scanner data resulted in a higher estimated MTPM than using GE scanner data (contrast Siemens-GE 0.046 mm, CI 0.024-0.067; Siemens: 0.12 mm; GE: 0.072 mm).

conclusionThe precision of the new CT-RSA software system, V3MA, is comparable to that of CTMA under zero-motion assumptions. Minor, clinically irrelevant, inter-scanner differences in CT-RSA precision exist for both software systems.

Indexed as

Radiostereometric AnalysisTibiaTomography, X-Ray ComputedAnimalsArthroplasty, Replacement, KneeCadaverSoftwareSwine

Identifiers

PMID41287575
PMCPMC12645134

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.