ReviewJournal of experimental orthopaedics2026
The accuracy of artificial intelligence in 3D preoperative planning for total hip arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Journal of experimental orthopaedics, 2026. 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.
- Artificial Intelligence in Arthroplasty: A Comprehensive Structured Critical Review and Descriptive Evidence Map of Validation, Uncertainty, and Workflow Integration.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
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
Purpose: This systematic review and meta-analysis compare AI-assisted 3-dimensional (3D) preoperative planning in total hip arthroplasty (THA) to traditional 2-dimensional (2D) templating. Methods: PubMed, Scopus, and Embase were searched from inception until October 2024 for studies on the accuracy of 3D preoperative planning in THA. Statistical analysis was performed using R (v4.3.3) with a random-effects model due to high heterogeneity. Odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated for dichotomous outcomes. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Results: Eight studies with 1371 participants from China were analysed. The mean age was 54.48 ± 12.98 years, and the mean BMI was 24.63 ± 3.73 kg/m². The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) scores ranged from 6 to 9. The AI model effectively predicted acetabular cup and femoral stem sizes, with an odds ratio (OR) of 3.85 for the exact cup size (95% CI: 2.79-5.32; Conclusion: This meta-analysis confirms that AI-assisted 3D preoperative planning in THA provides better accuracy for predicting the acetabular cup and femoral stem sizes than traditional 2D templating methods. Further studies with larger sample sizes and more extended follow-up periods across multiple countries are warranted to validate our findings. Level of Evidence: Level III.
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.