Table 3 Summary of previous studies comparing the accuracy of cup positioning in THA
Inclination | Anteversion | Inclination and anteversion | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Articles | Support instrument | Approach | Number of hips (n) | Average inclination angle (degree) | SD (degree) | Definition of the target zone (degree) | Within the target zone (%) | Average anteversion angle (degree) | SD (degree) | Definition of the target zone (degree) | Within the target zone (%) | Both within the target zone (%) |
This study | Conventional traction table | DAA | 101 | 38.1 | 4.1 | 30–50 | 99.0 | 12.0 | 4.7 | 5–25 | 97.0 | 96.0 |
Matta [9] | Carbon fiber traction table | DAA | 494 | 42 | 4 | 35–50 | 96 | 19.4 | 5.2 | 10–25 | 93 | NA |
Woolson [10] | Carbon fiber traction table | DAA | 247 | 44 | NA | 30–50 | 79 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
Hamilton [11] | Carbon fiber traction table | DAA | 100 | 44.2 | 5.0 | 30–50 | 90 | 17.6 | 4.5 | 5–25 | 92 | NA |
Cheng [12] | Carbon fiber traction table | DAA | 35 | 46.2 | 6.1 | 30–50 | 68.6 | 24.6 | 8.8 | 5–25 | NA | 42.9 |
Lin [13] | Carbon fiber traction table | DAA | 108 | NA | NA | 30–50 | 96.3 | 22.7 | NA | 5–25 | 63.9 | NA |
Wernly [14] | Carbon fiber traction table | DAA | 75 | 43.7 | 4.3 | 30–50 | 93.3 | 32 | 7 | 5–25 | 18.6 | NA |
Moslemi [15] | Carbon fiber traction table | DAA | 137 | 40.4 | 7.1 | 30–50 | 84.7 | 15.6 | 11.8 | 5–25 | 61.3 | NA |
Domb [16] | Robot assisted | DAA, PA | 66 | 40.9 | 3.2 | 30–50 | 100 | 18.4 | 3.7 | 5–25 | 97.0 | 97.0 |
Illgen [17] | Robot assisted | PA | 100 | NA | NA | 30–50 | 100 | NA | NA | 5–25 | 77.0 | 77.0 |
Stewart [18] | Robot assisted | DAA | 100 | NA | NA | 30–50 | 96.0 | NA | NA | 5–25 | 91.0 | 87.0 |
Foissey [19] | Robot assisted | DAA | 50 | 40.5 | 3.4 | 30–50 | 100 | 23.4 | 3.5 | 10–30 | 98.0 | 98.0 |