ArticleActa orthopaedica2026
Association between intraoperative fluoroscopy for anterior approach total hip arthroplasty and short-term revision risk: an analysis based on 49,878 cases from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register.
Article in Acta orthopaedica, 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
background and purposeIntraoperative fluoroscopy during primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) can be used to assist in component positioning in order to optimize placement and restore hip kinematics. Whether fluoroscopy leads to superior outcomes is subject to debate. We aimed to examine the use of fluoroscopy in the Netherlands and determine the association between the use of fluoroscopy and short-term revision risk following primary THA via the direct anterior approach (DAA).
methodsWe included 49,878 primary THAs, performed via DAA, registered in the LROI from 2022-2024. Competing risk analysis and multivariable Cox-regression analyses were used to assess differences in implant survival between use of fluoroscopy and conventional surgery. Hazard ratios (HR) were adjusted for body mass index, previous surgeries, and fixation, and stratified for age, ASA class, and diagnosis.
resultsUnadjusted cumulative incidence of revision after 6 months, 1, 2, and 2.5 years did not show significant differences: the 2.5-year revision rate was 1.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.5-1.9) for the fluoroscopy group, and 2.0% (CI 1.8-2.3) in the conventional group. Multivariable analysis demonstrated that the use of fluoroscopy was associated with a significantly lower risk of revision than conventional surgery (HR 0.8, CI 0.7-0.9).
conclusionThe use of intraoperative fluoroscopy in primary THA via DAA in the Netherlands is associated with a significantly lower short-term risk of revision. The data showed no major differences in revision due to malalignment and periprosthetic fractures. Revision rates were low in both groups and clinical differences were only small.
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.