ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2026
Radiation exposure for planning deformity corrections with hexapods: comparison of conventional X-ray, standard CT, and ultra-low-dose CT.
Article in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionHexapod systems are among the most accurate devices for correcting complex bone deformities. Postoperative planning is carried out using web-based software solutions based on at least two X-ray images in orthogonal planes. Recent studies have shown that inaccuracies in determining mounting parameters and the spatial relationship between the reference ring and the bone may lead to measurement errors. Computed tomography images potentially offer greater accuracy in this regard, but are associated with increased radiation exposure. The aim of this study was to compare radiation exposure from conventional radiography (X-ray), standard computed tomography (CT), and ultra-low-dose CT (ULD-CT) in the context of planning deformity corrections using a hexapod system and to evaluate suitability and comparability of these imaging modalities for treatment planning. MATERIALS AND
methodsBetween March 1, 2022, and August 31, 2024, 28 patients were treated with a hexapod system for post-traumatic deformities at a Level I trauma center. All patients for whom standardized radiographs (anteroposterior and mediolateral views), conventional CT scans, and ULD-CT scans were available were included in this retrospective analysis. The study population thus comprised n = 18 patients. The effective radiation dose (µSv) was calculated separately for each examination. The values were compared using descriptive statistics and inferential analysis (repeated-measures ANOVA; p < 0.05).
resultsThe mean effective dose was 1.41 µSv (min 0.66 µSv, max 2.53 µSv, SD ± 0.6 µSv) for conventional X-rays, 4.61 µSv (min 2.97 µSv, max 6.68 µSv, SD ± 1.00 µSv) for ULD-CT, and 150.8 µSv (min 94.85 µSv, max 224.6 µSv, SD ± 35.81 µSv) for standard CT. ULD-CT showed significantly lower radiation exposure than standard CT while offering sufficient image quality for treatment planning. Although the radiation dose of ULD-CT was higher than that of X-rays, but in relation to the measurement precision achieved, there was a clear reduction in dose compared to standard CT.
conclusionULD-CT provides image quality suitable for treatment planning comparable to standard CT with significantly reduced radiation exposure. Given the significantly improved planning quality and acceptable dose, ULD-CT can be recommended as a favorable balance between precision and radiation protection. In conclusion, ULD-CT represents a valuable imaging option for obtaining the most accurate determination of the distance between two points, particularly when defining mounting parameters.
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.