Corrigendum
Acta Orthop 2025; 96: 295-303. doi: 10.2340/17453674.2025.43334
Sjors F VAN DE VUSSE, Nienke N DE LAAT, Lennard A KOSTER, and Bart L KAPTEIN
Department of Orthopedics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
Citation: Acta Orthopaedica 2025; 96: 411–412. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2025.43900.
Copyright: © 2025 The Author(s). Published by MJS Publishing – Medical Journals Sweden, on behalf of the Nordic Orthopedic Federation. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Submitted: 2024-11-10. Accepted: 2025-03-03. Corrected: 2025-05-09. Published: 2025-05-27.
Correspondence: B.L.Kaptein@lumc.nl
To our unpleasant surprise, we discovered that we have mistakenly included incorrect values in Table 2 (Reported accuracy of CT-RSA) for the paper by De Laat et al. (2024).
The paper by De Laat (2024) is from our group as well. In the draft version of the systematic review manuscript, we included data from a draft manuscript of the paper by De Laat. Before publication of De Laat (2024) we updated the values for the RMS error for accuracy in translations and rotations based on an increased number of observations. However, we have overlooked to use the updated values for Table 2 of the systematic review. We are sincerely sorry for this mistake.
We believe it is important to be transparent and to ensure a correct link between the systematic review and the paper by De Laat. These requested changes do not alter our conclusions of the systematic review.
On behalf of all authors
Bart Kaptein
10 studies performed accuracy measurements in an in-vitro test setup (Table 2). Of these, 9 CT-RSA accuracy studies used a conventional CT scanner and 1 a micro-CT scanner. In these studies, the predefined migration of a phantom model was simulated and compared with measured migration using a CT-RSA technique. Combining all CT-RSA techniques using conventional CT, the accuracy ranged between 0.02 and 0.71 mm and 0.03° and 1.00°. In 2 studies the accuracy of total translation for femoral head components was available, which ranged between 0.11 and 0.23 mm. The micro-CT study showed accuracy ranging between 0.03 and 0.12 µm for glenoid components.
10 studies performed accuracy measurements in an in-vitro test setup (Table 2). Of these, 9 CT-RSA accuracy studies used a conventional CT scanner and 1 a micro-CT scanner. In these studies, the predefined migration of a phantom model was simulated and compared with measured migration using a CT-RSA technique. Combining all CT-RSA techniques using conventional CT, the accuracy ranged between 0.03 and 0.71 mm and 0.04° and 1.00°. In 2 studies the accuracy of total translation for femoral head components was available, which ranged between 0.11 and 0.23 mm. The micro-CT study showed accuracy ranging between 0.03 and 0.12 µm for glenoid components.
| Joint/Method | Author | N | Tx | Ty | Tz | Rx | Ry | Rz | U | TT |
| Acetabulum | ||||||||||
| CTSA | Clarke (2023) | T17;R15 | 0.08 | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.17 | 0.29 | 0.43 | – | – |
| 3D volume tool | Olivecrona (2003) | T30 | – | – | – | – | – | – | T0.61 | – |
| Proximal femur | ||||||||||
| CTSA | Clarke (2023) | T17;R15 | 0.18 | 0.04 | 0.15 | 0.28 | 0.46 | 0.36 | – | – |
| Scheerlinck (2016) | T39;R39 | 0.05 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.08 | 0.06 | – | – | |
| Geomagic 7 | Boettner (2015) a | 1) T30 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 0.23 |
| 2) T30 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 0.18 | ||
| 3) T30 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 0.20 | ||
| Boettner (2016) | T15 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 0.11 | |
| Tibia | ||||||||||
| V3MA | De Laat (2024) | T9;R6 | 0.05 | 0.02 | 0.15 | – | – | 0.03 | – | – |
| Glenoid | ||||||||||
| CTMA | Brodén, Giles (2020) | T16;R12 | 0.23 | 0.17 | 0.20 | 0.44 | 0.48 | 0.71 | – | – |
| micro-CT | Sukjamsri (2015) | T12 | 0.12 | 0.03 | 0.07 | – | – | – | – | – |
| 3D volume tool | Jun (2022) | T9;R3 | 0.06 | 0.24 | 0.15 | – | – | 0.11 | – | – |
| Humerus | ||||||||||
| CTMA | Brodén, Giles (2020) | T16;R12 | 0.11 | 0.07 | 0.09 | 0.34 | 0.32 | 0.22 | – | – |
| Spine | ||||||||||
| 3D volume tool | Svedmark (2011) | T61;R61 | 0.57 | 0.28 | 0.71 | 1.00 | 0.57 | 0.28 | – | – |
| For abbreviations, see Table 1. n is the number of measurements with ‘T’ as translations and ‘R’ as rotations. Studies that used multiple protocols were named (1), (2), etc. Axis definition is reported according to the CT coordinate system: medial (X), posterior (Y), and proximal (Z). Measurements with unknown axis definition are depicted in U. Measurements in all axes are shown in mm for translations and degrees for rotations, and respectively in µm and millidegrees for micro-CT. If available, total translation (in mm) was inserted in TT. a 3 different radiation protocols were used: (1) standard protocol for hip implants, (2) and (3) alternative low-dose protocols. | ||||||||||
| Joint/Method | Author | n | Tx | Ty | Tz | Rx | Ry | Rz | U | TT |
| Acetabulum | ||||||||||
| CTSA | Clarke (2023) | T17;R15 | 0.08 | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.17 | 0.29 | 0.43 | – | – |
| 3D volume tool | Olivecrona (2003) | T30 | – | – | – | – | – | – | T0.61 | – |
| Proximal femur | ||||||||||
| CTSA | Clarke (2023) | T17;R15 | 0.18 | 0.04 | 0.15 | 0.28 | 0.46 | 0.36 | – | – |
| Scheerlinck (2016) | T39;R39 | 0.05 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.08 | 0.06 | – | – | |
| Geomagic 7 | Boettner (2015) a | 1) T30 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 0.23 |
| 2) T30 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 0.18 | ||
| 3) T30 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 0.20 | ||
| Boettner (2016) | T15 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 0.11 | |
| Tibia | ||||||||||
| V3MA | De Laat (2024) | T21;R21 | 0.19 | 0.04 | 0.13 | – | – | 0.04 | – | – |
| Glenoid | ||||||||||
| CTMA | Brodén, Giles (2020) | T16;R12 | 0.23 | 0.17 | 0.20 | 0.44 | 0.48 | 0.71 | – | – |
| micro-CT | Sukjamsri (2015) | T12 | 0.12 | 0.03 | 0.07 | – | – | – | – | – |
| 3D volume tool | Jun (2022) | T9;R3 | 0.06 | 0.24 | 0.15 | – | – | 0.11 | – | – |
| Humerus | ||||||||||
| CTMA | Brodén, Giles (2020) | T16;R12 | 0.11 | 0.07 | 0.09 | 0.34 | 0.32 | 0.22 | – | – |
| Spine | ||||||||||
| 3D volume tool | Svedmark (2011) | T61;R61 | 0.57 | 0.28 | 0.71 | 1.00 | 0.57 | 0.28 | – | – |
| For abbreviations, see Table 1. n is the number of measurements with ‘T’ as translations and ‘R’ as rotations. Studies that used multiple protocols were named (1), (2), etc. Axis definition is reported according to the CT coordinate system: medial (X), posterior (Y), and proximal (Z). Measurements with unknown axis definition are depicted in U. Measurements in all axes are shown in mm for translations and degrees for rotations, and respectively in µm and millidegrees for micro-CT. If available, total translation (in mm) was inserted in TT. a 3 different radiation protocols were used: (1) standard protocol for hip implants, (2) and (3) alternative low-dose protocols. |
||||||||||