ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2026
Comparison between the accuracy of conventional and portable computed tomography-based navigation systems in total hip arthroplasty.
Article in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough conventional computed tomography (CT)-based navigation provides excellent placement accuracy and clinical outcomes, whether recently introduced portable systems can achieve comparable results remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the placement accuracy and surgical outcomes of portable CT-based navigation systems.
methodsThis study assessed 56 hips of patients that underwent total hip arthroplasty (THA) using portable CT-based navigation. Using propensity score matching based on age, sex, and body mass index, we identified 51 hips treated with portable CT-based navigation (portable CTN group) and 51 hips with conventional CT-based navigation (CTN group). The evaluation parameters included cup orientation accuracy, cup positioning, operative time, blood loss, preoperative and postoperative Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores, and complications.
resultsRegarding accuracy error, the portable CTN (radiographic inclination [RI]: 2.8 ± 2.8°, radiographic anteversion [RA]: 3.8 ± 3.2°) and CTN groups (RI: 2.7 ± 1.9°, RA: 3.0 ± 2.1°) did not significantly differ. For navigation error, the portable CTN group (RI: 3.2 ± 3.2°, RA: 3.5 ± 3.1°) had significantly inferior results to the CTN group (RI: 2.2 ± 1.7°, RA: 2.3 ± 1.7°) regarding anteversion. The portable CTN group demonstrated a significantly lower accuracy, as the proportion of hips with a navigation error of > 5° was 31.4% (16 hips), compared to 11.8% (6 hips) in the CTN group. For cup position, the horizontal position error in the portable CTN group was 3.1 ± 1.8 mm, significantly less accurate than the 2.3 ± 1.9 mm in the CTN group. No significant differences were observed in the clinical outcomes within the follow-up period of one year.
conclusionPortable CT-based navigation was inferior to conventional CT-based navigation in terms of placement accuracy, including cup orientation and positioning. While clinical outcomes did not significantly differ at the one-year follow-up, this short-term follow-up limits conclusions on long-term clinical equivalence. Future advancements in portable CT-based navigation systems are required to improve their accuracy.
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.