ArticleCureus2025
Evaluation of the Accuracy of Intraoperative Femoral Stem Anteversion Using a Mechanical Alignment Guide and a CT-Based Navigation System.
Article in Cureus, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background In total hip arthroplasty (THA), implant position is one of the critical factors affecting implant longevity, clinical outcomes, and postoperative complications. Although a number of studies have reported the accuracy of acetabular component positioning using a computed tomography (CT)-based navigation system, the significance of femoral stem anteversion has not been well addressed in the literature. Methods Stem anteversion in 83 patients who underwent primary THA and bipolar hemiarthroplasty was simultaneously measured with both a CT-based navigation system and a mechanical alignment guide during surgery. Both intraoperative measurement values were compared with the postoperative measurement values using the same three-dimensional coordinate system. Results The absolute discrepancy between the mechanical alignment guide value and the postoperative stem anteversion was 7.6° ± 5.2° (range: 0° to 17°). On the other hand, the absolute discrepancy between the intraoperative stem anteversion value measured with CT-based navigation and the postoperative stem anteversion was 2.9° ± 3.1° (range: 0° to 14°). The absolute discrepancy was significantly lower in intraoperative CT-based navigation (p = 0.001). Conclusion Intraoperative stem anteversion measurements using CT-based navigation were more accurate than those using the mechanical alignment guide.
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.