ArticleActa orthopaedica2025
Precision evaluation of 2 CT-based radiostereometric analysis systems in a cadaver study.
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.
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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.