ArticleSkeletal radiology2026
Clinical feasibility of camera-type X-ray for intraoperative imaging of hip arthroplasty: a pilot study.
Article in Skeletal radiology, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the clinical feasibility of a camera-type X-ray system, compared with conventional portable X-ray, for intraoperative imaging during hip arthroplasty. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwenty-one patients who underwent hip arthroplasty were prospectively enrolled. Conventional portable and camera-type X-ray images were obtained intraoperatively (n = 42). Three reviewers (two radiologists and one orthopedic surgeon) independently assessed image quality and diagnostic confidence using 4-point Likert scales, as well as the feasibility of assessing leg length discrepancies (LLD), calculated as the difference between the transischial line and the lesser trochanter (TI-LT). Two radiologists also measured the TI-LT interval in both modalities. Image quality and diagnostic confidence were compared using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. The feasibility of LLD assessment was analyzed using Fisher's exact test. The agreement between camera-type and portable X-ray measurements was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs).
resultsImage quality scores were significantly higher for portable X-rays than for camera-type X-rays (mean ± SD, 3.65 ± 0.44 vs. 2.57 ± 0.89; p < 0.001). Diagnostic confidence was also higher with the portable X-rays (3.86 ± 0.27 vs. 2.95 ± 0.91; p < 0.001). However, the feasibility of the LLD assessment did not differ significantly between the two modalities for any reviewer (all p > 0.1). The TI-LT interval measurements demonstrated good agreement between camera-type and portable X-rays, with an ICC of 0.750 (95% CI 0.454-0.898).
conclusionsAlthough conventional portable X-rays provided superior image quality and diagnostic confidence, camera-type X-rays demonstrated comparable feasibility for intraoperative evaluation of LLD and good agreement in quantitative measurements. These findings support the clinical feasibility of using camera-type X-rays for intraoperative imaging during hip arthroplasty.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42554762What 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.