ArticleArthroplasty today2026
Can an Artificial Intelligence Application Raise Awareness of Dislocation Risk After Total Hip Arthroplasty?
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Dislocation after total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a devastating complication. The hip-spine relationship is a significant contributor to hip instability and dislocation after THA but is predominantly evaluated with static radiographs, limiting its utility. This study evaluated a novel artificial intelligence (AI)-based application for real-time analysis of hip-spine motion prior to THA to dynamically evaluate patients' hip-spine stiffness in real-time prior to THA. Methods: Preoperative hip and spine flexibility were assessed using an AI application that recorded patients performing sit-to-stand, forward flexion, and standing posture maneuvers. Minimum and maximum neck, spine, trunk, and knee angles were measured preoperatively. Preoperative radiographs were also evaluated for spinal stiffness indicators. Acetabular component abduction and anteversion angles were measured to confirm adequate positioning. Results: Nineteen patients underwent THA via an anterior-based muscle-sparing approach with a minimum 12-month follow-up. The mean preoperative forward flexion trunk angle was 95.7° ± 14.4° (25th percentile: ≤87.2°). During sit-to-stand, mean maximum and minimum spine angles were 38.3° ± 13.3° (25th percentile: ≤27.6°) and 5.1° ± 5.9° (75th percentile: ≥6.2°), respectively. Fifteen patients (78.9%) received 36-mm femoral heads. Mean abduction and anteversion was 43.9° and 26.4°, respectively. No postoperative hip dislocations occurred. Conclusions: This AI-based hip joint assessment tool may serve as a clinic-based tool to evaluate the hip-spine relationship as a dynamic predictor of dislocation risk. It may offer greater accuracy than static radiographs, which cannot comprehensively capture real-time functional movements. This tool may improve surgical planning, particularly in higher-risk patients. Larger studies are needed to validate its predictivity and clinical utility.
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.