ArticleFrontiers in surgery2026
A study on the feasibility and initial outcomes of artificial intelligence-assisted preoperative planning for hip revision surgery.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study was to explore the early and midterm efficacy of artificial intelligence (AI) involvement in assisted hip revision surgery and to summarize our clinical experience. Methods: Clinical data were collected from 38 patients (39 hips) who underwent hip revision surgery and preoperative planning using AI technology in our hospital between June 2019 and November 2024. The cohort included 17 men and 22 women, with a mean age of 70.33 ± 10.42 years (range 44-90 years). Mean follow-up time was 39.67 ± 16.76 months (range 7-72 months). The initial revision was performed in 37 hips, second revision in three hips, and third revision in one hip. The function of the affected limb was evaluated using Harris Hip Scoring System (HHS) at preoperative and postoperative nodes. Results: In this study, 38 patients were monitored for 7-72 months, with a mean follow-up of 34.64 ± 16.54 months. Matching of AI-planned prosthesis size with actual prosthesis size replaced during surgery: 3 cases (7.69%) showed a ±1 size discrepancy, 1 case (2.56%) showed a ±2 size discrepancy, and the remaining patients achieved precise matching. The HHS scores of all patients at 6 months postoperatively (82.99 ± 6.91) were higher than the preoperative scores (33.03 ± 7.36), and the difference was statistically significant ( Conclusion: AI technology makes complex revision surgeries simple by accurately formulating individual preoperative plans for hip revision surgery. The feasibility and preliminary efficacy of AI-assisted revision total hip arthroplasty surgery are satisfactory. AI-assisted complex orthopedic surgeries warrant further in-depth clinical research.
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.