ArticleSICOT-J2026
Variations in Acetabular Offset Between the Preoperative Plan (mediCAD
Article in SICOT-J, 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
Abstract
introductionRestoring the offset after THA is positively correlated with good functional outcomes and patient satisfaction. Preoperative planning is now an essential tool for optimizing this restoration. Nevertheless, recent studies have focused mainly on the femoral offset, at the expense of the acetabular offset. Our hypothesis was that the variations in global offset after THA are mainly due to variations in acetabular offset relative to its initially planned value.
methodsThis retrospective study involved 104 patients who had undergone primary anterior THA with two-dimensional preoperative planning between January 2023 and November 2024. The planned preoperative radiographs and the postoperative radiographs were analyzed independently by two attending orthopeadic surgeons who measured the global, acetabular, and femoral offsets. The intra-rater and inter-rater agreement was determined. The differences between the planned implant sizes and the size actually implanted were also determined.
resultsIn the end, 43 patients met all the pre and postoperative radiographic criteria and were included in the analysis. There was a correlation between the variation in acetabular offset and the variations in global offset (r = 0.74, p < 0.0001) and between the variation in femoral offset and the variations in global offset (r = 0.68, p < 0.0001). Using multiple linear regression, the coefficients of regression for the variation in the acetabular offset and femoral offset were 1.00, indicating an equal contribution (50%) to variations in global offset.
conclusionVariations in the positioning of the acetabular cup are an important factor in the variations in global offset after THA. The postoperative variations in acetabular and femoral offsets contribute equally to changes in the global offset. Clinically, this means that practitioners should focus more on implanting the acetabular component. REGISTRATION: IRB approval N° 22727513. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
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.