ArticleArthroplasty today2026
Biomechanical Evaluation of Powered Acetabular Extraction Tool Reduces Force, Time, and Surgeon Burden Compared to Manual Tools in a Simulated Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Model.
Article in Arthroplasty today, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Removing acetabular implants is time- and labor-intensive, prompting the development of powered and manual extraction systems. Comparative data on force requirements, ergonomics, and operative time remain limited. We compared a powered vs a manual system in novice and expert surgeons using an in vitro model. Methods: Composite foam blocks implanted with a 54-mm hemispherical acetabular shell emulated a well-fixed cementless construct and were mounted on a force sensor. Three board-certified, fellowship-trained orthopaedic surgeons and 3 residents each performed 3 trials with a powered extractor and a manual extractor. Participants wore triaxial accelerometers on the back and both hands and an in-line force sensor. Outcomes were peak acceleration (proxy for vibration), peak applied force, and time to extraction. Results: Relative to the powered device, the manual device was associated with higher back acceleration (estimate 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.49-0.61; Conclusions: The powered acetabular extraction tool reduced vibration exposure, applied force, and extraction time compared with a manual device across both novice and expert operators. In a field with substantial work-related musculoskeletal injury and growing emphasis on surgeon well-being, powered extraction may improve efficiency while helping preserve surgeon health and career longevity. These data provide objective support for selecting powered systems when available and justify further study in cadaveric and clinical settings to confirm external validity.
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.