ArticleEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2026
Comparison of the accuracy for cup positioning between portable inertial navigation systems and manual methods during total hip arthroplasty in the anterolateral supine position.
Article in European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis study primarily aimed to compare the accuracy of acetabular cup positioning between the portable inertial navigation system (INS) Navbit Sprint and the manual method during total hip arthroplasty (THA) using the same cup in the supine position. The second aim was to investigate patient factors associated with cup positioning accuracy for THA with a portable INS. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis study included 105 consecutive patients who underwent THA using a portable INS (n = 54) or manual methods (n = 51). The absolute difference between the target and postoperative angles, as determined by postoperative computed tomography data (placement error), was compared between the portable INS and manual method groups. The absolute value of the difference between the navigation and postoperative angles (measurement error) was also evaluated, and related factors were analyzed using multiple regression analysis.
resultsThe average placement error with the portable INS group was 3.6 ± 2.7° and 2.6 ± 2.5° for inclination and anteversion, respectively. For the manual method group, the absolute difference was 6.0 ± 4.0° and 4.5 ± 3.5° for inclination and anteversion, respectively. Significant differences were observed between groups. The average measurement error of the portable INS group was 2.5 ± 1.9° and 2.7 ± 2.2° for inclination and anteversion, respectively. The measurement error for inclination significantly correlated with the leg length discrepancy.
conclusionsCup positioning with the Navbit Sprint was significantly more accurate than the manual method during THA using the same cup in the anterolateral supine position. However, a significant leg length discrepancy could negatively impact the accuracy of cup positioning inclination.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42234260What 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.