BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025
Severity-dependent benefits of AI-assisted 3D planning in total hip arthroplasty: a Crowe I-IV subgroup and trend analysis.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lu Zhenbao, Wang Qijin, Wang Xu, Xu Qingshan, Feng Yuhua, Chen Jiliang, Wang Xiaolu, Zhu Jianfu, Wu Jinqing, Wang Tihui, Xia Qiujin, Fan Xiaohong, Yuan Cuihua
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare AI-assisted 3D (AI-3D) preoperative planning versus two-dimensional (2D) X-ray preoperative planning for total hip arthroplasty (THA) using subgroup analyses (Crowe I-II vs. III-IV), and to examine associations between deformity severity and both planning accuracy and clinical outcomes via ordered trend analyses.
METHODS: Single-centre retrospective cohort including 116 consecutive patients undergoing THA (May 2020-July 2023; AI-3D n = 61; 2D X-ray n = 55). Co-primary endpoints were exact implant size-match (cup/stem) and acetabular safe-zone attainment (Lewinnek/Callanan); Secondary endpoints included operative time, estimated blood loss, postoperative leg-length discrepancy (LLD), and 24-month functional scores-Harris Hip Score (HHS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and pain on a visual analog scale (VAS)-plus implant survivorship. Analyses compared AI-3D versus 2D within prespecified Crowe subgroups; ordered trend tests across I-IV were performed in the pooled cohort.
RESULTS: Overall comparisons showed that AI-3D demonstrated significantly higher accuracy in sizing prediction and acetabular cup positioning in this study: cup size-match 63.9% versus 41.8% (P = 0.017), stem size-match 65.6% versus 47.3% (P = 0.047), and Lewinnek/Callanan safe-zone attainment 91.8% versus 76.4% (P = 0.021); by contrast, operative time and blood loss did not differ significantly. Subgroup analyses suggested that this benefit was mainly confined to Crowe I-II, while in Crowe III-IV the differences were not significant. At the 24-month follow-up, HHS, WOMAC, VAS, and implant survivorship (≈ 98%) were comparable between groups. In trend analyses pooling both cohorts, cup match rates decreased as Crowe grade increased (P = 0.004), the extent of functional improvement (change in HHS (ΔHHS), change in WOMAC (ΔWOMAC)) rose with greater deformity severity (both P ≤ 0.001), and safe-zone attainment remained high without a clear monotonic trend.
CONCLUSIONS: AI-3D preoperative planning provides measurable gains in implant sizing and acetabular cup positioning for THA, with benefits most evident in mild-to-moderate deformities (Crowe I-II). In severe deformities (Crowe III-IV), anatomical and reconstructive challenges appear to limit these advantages, emphasizing the continued importance of surgical expertise. Functional outcomes were comparable between AI-3D and conventional 2D planning. Overall, AI-3D may serve as a useful adjunct in complex cases, pending confirmation in larger multicentre and long-term studies.
METHODS: Single-centre retrospective cohort including 116 consecutive patients undergoing THA (May 2020-July 2023; AI-3D n = 61; 2D X-ray n = 55). Co-primary endpoints were exact implant size-match (cup/stem) and acetabular safe-zone attainment (Lewinnek/Callanan); Secondary endpoints included operative time, estimated blood loss, postoperative leg-length discrepancy (LLD), and 24-month functional scores-Harris Hip Score (HHS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and pain on a visual analog scale (VAS)-plus implant survivorship. Analyses compared AI-3D versus 2D within prespecified Crowe subgroups; ordered trend tests across I-IV were performed in the pooled cohort.
RESULTS: Overall comparisons showed that AI-3D demonstrated significantly higher accuracy in sizing prediction and acetabular cup positioning in this study: cup size-match 63.9% versus 41.8% (P = 0.017), stem size-match 65.6% versus 47.3% (P = 0.047), and Lewinnek/Callanan safe-zone attainment 91.8% versus 76.4% (P = 0.021); by contrast, operative time and blood loss did not differ significantly. Subgroup analyses suggested that this benefit was mainly confined to Crowe I-II, while in Crowe III-IV the differences were not significant. At the 24-month follow-up, HHS, WOMAC, VAS, and implant survivorship (≈ 98%) were comparable between groups. In trend analyses pooling both cohorts, cup match rates decreased as Crowe grade increased (P = 0.004), the extent of functional improvement (change in HHS (ΔHHS), change in WOMAC (ΔWOMAC)) rose with greater deformity severity (both P ≤ 0.001), and safe-zone attainment remained high without a clear monotonic trend.
CONCLUSIONS: AI-3D preoperative planning provides measurable gains in implant sizing and acetabular cup positioning for THA, with benefits most evident in mild-to-moderate deformities (Crowe I-II). In severe deformities (Crowe III-IV), anatomical and reconstructive challenges appear to limit these advantages, emphasizing the continued importance of surgical expertise. Functional outcomes were comparable between AI-3D and conventional 2D planning. Overall, AI-3D may serve as a useful adjunct in complex cases, pending confirmation in larger multicentre and long-term studies.