ArticleInternational orthopaedics2026
Accuracy of two different imageless navigation systems for leg length and global offset change in total hip arthroplasty: A comparison using two-dimensional radiographic and three-dimensional CT-based evaluation.
Article in International orthopaedics, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of two imageless navigation systems for restoring leg length change (LLC) and global offset change (GOC) in total hip arthroplasty (THA) using two-dimensional (2D) radiographic and three-dimensional computed tomography (3D CT)-based assessment methods.
methodsPatients undergoing primary cementless THA were divided into two groups based on the imageless navigation system used: a large-console group (n = 120) and a portable handheld group (n = 83). Intraoperative navigation measurements of the LLC and GOC were compared with values derived from preoperative and postoperative assessments, and absolute measurement errors were calculated. Accuracy was evaluated using 2D radiographic and 3D CT-based measurements. Between-system differences and discrepancies between 2 and 3D assessment methods were analyzed.
resultsAbsolute LLC error in the large-console group was 2.7 ± 3.3 mm on 2D radiographic evaluation and 2.5 ± 3.3 mm on 3D CT-based evaluation, compared with 2.9 ± 2.7 mm and 3.0 ± 2.8 mm, respectively, in the portable handheld group. LLC error was significantly lower in the large-console group on 3D evaluation (p = 0.004). Absolute GOC error did not differ significantly between groups. No differences were observed between 2 and 3D evaluations for LLC, whereas most GOC-related parameters differed significantly between methods.
conclusionImageless navigation systems achieved favorable accuracy for LLC and GOC in THA. While radiographic assessment is sufficient for evaluating leg length, 3D CT-based evaluation provides a more consistent and less position-dependent assessment of global offset.
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.