ArticleIndian journal of orthopaedics2026
Evaluation of Accuracy and Reliability of Free Templating Software for Total Hip Arthroplasty.
Article in Indian journal of orthopaedics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Preoperative planning in total hip arthroplasty (THA) is crucial for ensuring the availability of appropriate implants and providing surgeons with accurate size expectations. Without accurate templating, surgeons risk making incorrect decisions about implant size, potentially leading to intra-operative fractures, instability, dislocation and early prosthesis failures. While commercial digital templating tools are available, their costs can be prohibitive, especially in resource-limited settings. Open-source alternatives like Detroit Bone Setter offer a potential solution, but their reliability requires rigorous validation. Methods: We retrospectively analysed 85 patients who underwent primary THA between 2021 and 2024. Preoperative digital templating was performed using Detroit Bone Setter by two blinded senior orthopaedic surgeons who independently predicted femoral stem and acetabular cup sizes. Templated sizes were compared to intraoperatively implanted components using paired Student's t-tests and Bland-Altman plots. Inter-observer reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Results: Significant differences were found between templated and actual implant sizes, with a mean bias of + 0.71 mm (p = 0.0003) for femoral stems and + 3.20 mm (p < 0.0001) for acetabular cups. The templated size fell within ± 2 sizes of the actual size in 85% of cases for femoral stems and 65% of cases for acetabular cups. Inter-observer reliability was high (ICC = 0.89 for femoral stems and 0.83 for acetabular cups). Conclusion: These findings underscore the potential of Detroit Bone Setter to serve as a viable low-cost planning tool, especially in resource-constrained surgical environments. Detroit Bone Setter demonstrates reasonable accuracy for femoral stem templating. However, it tends to overestimate acetabular cup sizes. Surgeons should be aware of this tendency and use intraoperative verification techniques to complement templating results.
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.