ArticleJB & JS open access
Flatback Deformity and Stiff Pelvic Mobility Alter the Optimal Cup Anteversion After Total Hip Arthroplasty: Insights from 3D-to-2D Model-Image Registration Analysis.
Article in JB & JS open access. 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Flatback deformity and stiff spinopelvic mobility (SPM) are recognized risk factors for dislocation after total hip arthroplasty. This study aimed to determine patient-specific optimal cup anteversion ranges associated with spinopelvic abnormalities. Methods: We analyzed postoperative sit-to-stand motion in 108 hips using three-dimensional-to-two-dimensional model-image registration. Implanted components were virtually positioned at their actual positions with inclination at 40°. Using pelvic tilt at maximal anterior tilt and standing, the range of combined anteversion (CA) satisfying required range of motion was evaluated. CA midpoint (CA_mid) and range (CA_range) were compared across spinopelvic alignment groups. Results: Flatback hips demonstrated a significantly lower CA_mid than normal (41.1° vs. 46.8°), whereas stiff SPM hips showed a similar CA_mid but a narrower CA_range (14.5° vs. 19.4°). Significant correlations were observed between spinopelvic alignment and CA parameters. Conclusions: Spinopelvic alignment influences both the optimal cup orientation and its tolerance range. Incorporating these factors may allow patient-specific optimization of acetabular component positioning. Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective cohort study. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence. Clinical Relevance: Personalized component positioning based on dynamic spinopelvic alignment may help reduce dislocation risk and improve implant stability in high-risk THA patients.
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.