The influence of computer navigation on trainee learning in hip resurfacing arthroplasty

Figures & data

Table I.  Summary of data extracted from included studies.

	Cobb et al., 2007	Seyler et al., 2008	Gofton et al., 2007
Study design	Randomized, prospective	Comparative, retrospective	Randomized, prospective
Setting	Lab, Sawbones	In vivo	Lab, Sawbones
Navigation system	Acrobot	BrainLAB	BrainLAB
Implant navigated	Guide wire	Femur	Acetabulum
Immediate retention/transfer testing	Range of error of varus/valgus angulation:
Conventional instruments	23° ± 6° p < 0.002	No difference in range of error of varus/valgus or frequency of notching	No difference in mean acetabular abduction angle or anteversion
Navigation	7° ± 2°
Delayed retention testing	Not assessed	Not assessed	No difference in mean acetabular anteversion.
			Mean difference in acetabular abduction angle:
Conventional instruments			4.3° ± 1.7° p < 0.0001
Navigation			2.5° ± 1.7°

Table II.  Summary of CONSORT checklists for included studies. A full explanation of the checklist can be found at http://www.consort-statement.org/consort-statement

Consort checklist item	Gofton et al., 2007	Cobb et al., 2007	Seyler et al., 2008
1. Participant allocation	1	0	0
2. Scientific rationale	1	1	1
3. Eligibility and setting	1	1	1
4. Intervention detail	1	1	1
5. Objective/hypothesis	1	1	1
6. Outcomes	1	1	1
7. Sample size determination	1	1	0
8. Sequence generation	0	0	0
9. Allocation concealment	0	0	0
10. Implementation of randomization	0	0	0
11. Blinding	1	0	0
12. Statistical methodology	1	1	1
13. Participant flow	1	1	1
14. Dates of recruitment	0	0	1
15. Baseline demographics	0	0	1
16. Numbers analyzed	1	0	1
17. Outcomes and estimation	1	1	1
18. Ancillary analyses	0	0	0
19. Adverse event reporting	0	0	0
20. Interpretation of results	1	1	1
21. Generalizability	0	0	0
22. Contextual interpretation	1	1	0
Total CONSORT score (max. 22)	14	11	12