ArticleActa orthopaedica2026
Precision of an automated surface-based CT-RSA (asCTRSA) for assessing tibial implant migration: a porcine cadaver study and a clinical case.
Article in Acta orthopaedica, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04017533 (In Vivo Stability of an Uncemented Total Knee Arthroplasty With Medially Stabilized Design), which is not on this 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.
In Vivo Stability of an Uncemented Total Knee Arthroplasty With Medially Stabilized Design
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeRadiostereometric analysis (RSA) is the reference standard for migration analysis, but adoption is limited by invasive marker implantation and specialized equipment. We developed an automated, surface-based CT-RSA (asCTRSA) method that reports a registration quality measure (mean rigid-body fitting error, ME). Our aim was to evaluate the precision by comparing asCTRSA with marker-based RSA and CT-based Micromotion Analysis (CTMA, v25.1).
methodsPrecision was assessed in a retrospective, repeated-measures, zero-migration study using a porcine cadaver tibial implant scanned in 7 positions (21 double examinations). Migration was reported as maximum total point motion (MTPM) for RSA and asCTRSA. CTMA provided maximum total translation (mTT) as an estimate of MTPM. Mean rigid-body fitting error (ME) was calculated for RSA and asCTRSA (acceptability threshold 0.35 mm). The minimal important difference for MTPM/mTT was 0.1 mm. asCTRSA was applied to 1 clinical case with known migration 3 and 8 months postoperatively (NCT04017533).
resultsIn the porcine study, precision was 0.09 mm (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.02-0.18) for asCTRSA, 0.08 mm (CI 0.03-0.12) for CTMA, and 0.45 mm (CI 0.20-0.69) for RSA. In the clinical case, asCTRSA detected increasing migration (MTPM 2.5-3.6 mm) and exceeded CTMA's mTT by 0.4 mm at 8 months. Mean rigid-body fitting error remained below 0.35 mm.
conclusionWe showed that asCTRSA enables automated, surface-based CT-RSA and demonstrated higher precision than RSA in this zero-migration cadaver setting.
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.