Skip to main content
Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology

Official Journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology

Download PDF

Pre-operative templating in THA using a short stem system: precision and accuracy of 2D versus 3D planning method

Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology volume 23, Article number: 16 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is the most successful orthopaedic surgery of the past century. The current study aimed to compare the accuracy of digital planning using 2D versus 3D templating.

Materials and methods

Ninety-five THAs in 90 patients were included in the current study. Pre- and post-operative X-rays (in two planes) and low-dose rotation computed tomography scans from hip to foot were performed. Paired t-test and regression analyses were conducted to compare 2D and 3D templating accuracy of the definitive implant.

Results

Cup size planned both with 2D (p < 0.0001) and 3D (p = 0.012) templating was significantly different from the definitively used cup size. The difference between the 2D-planned and implanted stem size (p < 0.0001) was statistically significant. In contrast, there were no significant differences in the 3D-planned and implanted stem size (p = 0.181). Three-dimensional templating showed significantly higher accuracy than 2D templating in terms of cup size (1.1 ± 1.4 versus 1.7 ± 1.8; p = 0.007) and stem size (0.3 ± 0.6 versus 0.7 ± 0.7; p < 0.0001).

With increasing body mass index (BMI), 2D templating of the stem became more inaccurate (p = 0.041). Remarkably, 3D templating remained accurate for all components (stem, p = 0.533; cup, p = 0.479) despite increasing BMI.

Conclusion

Despite extended planning time and increased exposure to radiation, 3D-based planning showed higher accuracy than 2D templating, especially in obese patients. On the basis of our results, we believe that 3D-based pre-operative planning in THA is justifiable and beneficial in patients with increased BMI.

Level of Evidence

III.

Introduction

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is known as the most successful orthopaedic procedure of the past century [1]. The operation replaces the damaged hip joint with artificial prosthetic components [2], contributing to pain relief and reduced patient suffering [3]. Over the past decades, improvements in materials, implant design and surgical techniques have increased implant survival [4] and decreased complication rates [5, 6]. Furthermore, patients’ expectations regarding function and longevity have increased because of these improvements [7].

With the increasing number of THAs with uncemented prostheses, the importance of pre-operative templating to restore or correct hip architecture has been extensively debated in the literature [7,8,9,10], and more emphasis has been placed on the proper selection of the accurate implant size to avoid complications such as fractures or subsidence [11]. Therefore, accurate pre-operative planning has become an important aspect of determining the correct implant size and position [12,13,14]. It is regarded as a vital step to successful component implantation [9], increases implant survival [15] and reduces complications associated with surgery [14]. Pre-operative templating is necessary to retain joint biomechanics such as total offset, leg length, centre of rotation and lateralization [16,17,18]. Femoral offset and leg length are essential parameters that must be restored to improve functional outcomes and long-term survival rates after THA [19,20,21]. Furthermore, pre-surgical templating is also important from an economic point of view, as a correct estimation of component sizes can avoid the waste of expensive parts.

New technologies, which have made digital templates available, provide innovative techniques that allow more accurate and consistent surgical planning [9, 10, 22,23,24,25]. The development of digital pre-operative planning of THA using plain radiographs for 2D [9, 10,12] and computed tomography (CT) for 3D templating [9, 22] improved the accuracy of implant position [7, 9, 22,23,24,25]. However, 2D templating still remains the gold standard in clinical practice [26, 27] despite its reported inferior accuracy [7].

This study aimed to compare the accuracy of a 2D and 3D planning tool regarding the size of the implant of an uncemented short stem system (ANA.NOVA Proxy, ImplanTec GmbH, Mödling, Austria) using the MediCAD 2D and 3D software.

Materials and methods

Ninety consecutive patients who underwent THA between 2016 and 2017 at a single, urban, high-volume university hospital were initially enrolled in the prospective comparative study. Five cases were subsequently excluded owing to incomplete information available, resulting in 90 patients with either unilateral (n = 85) or bilateral (n = 10) THA at a single institution with a total of 95 implanted THAs eligible for analysis. Eighty-four THAs were performed for primary coxarthrosis (88.4%). In addition, six cases of mild developmental dysplasia of the hip (6.3%), four post-traumatic coxarthroses (4.2%) and one avascular necrosis (1.1%) were also included in the current study.

Outpatient care included functional examination, and imaging was done using plain radiographs. Pre-operatively, X-rays in two planes and a low-dose CT scan were conducted, followed by a post-operative X-ray, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months and 1 year after surgery. After that, outpatient care was conducted annually. The pre-operative low-dose CT was done for 3D templating. All the X-rays and CT scans were performed using the same devices with the patient in a standardized (supine) position. Demographic data (age at time of surgery, gender, BMI), duration of surgery, and pre- and post-operative radiographic measurements of hip geometry were collected.

THA was performed in all patients using a new cementless short stem system (ANA.NOVA Proxy, ImplanTec GmbH, Mödling, Austria) and ceramic-on-ceramic head and liners. On the basis of X-ray and CT scans, the sizes of the implant components (i.e. cup and stem) were planned pre-operatively with both software systems (MediCAD 2D and 3D software). All operations were performed by a single consultant surgeon with an anterolateral approach to the hip with the patient in a supine position.

The study procedure followed accepted ethical, scientific and medical standards and was conducted in compliance with recognized international standards, including the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed consent was obtained from all the participants, and the study protocol was approved by the local ethics committee (28–152 ex 15/16) and a current amendment (received on 21 April 2020).

Pre-operative digital templating

The MediCAD software system (mediCAD, Hectec GmbH, Altdorf, Germany) was used for pre-operative digital 2D and 3D templating, incorporating essential parameters such as femoral segmentation, acetabulum diameter, hip joint centre, femoral neck axis, femoral stem axis and leg length difference. The pre-operative measurements were carried out independently of the definitively used implants and the surgeon performing surgery.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analyses were carried out using Stata/SE 15.1 (StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA). Mean values and medians were given with the corresponding standard deviation (SD) or interquartile range (IQR). Differences between 2D- and 3D-planned implants and used implants were compared with a paired t-test to calculate the significance. The absolute differences (i.e. positive values only) from 2D- and 3D-planned to definitive implants were calculated for each component (i.e. cup, stem). By reapplying paired t-tests, the absolute differences between 2D- and 3D-planned to definitive implants were estimated. Assuming that overlaying soft tissues may impair calibration of the X-rays for the 2D-based pre-operative planning owing to incoherent scattering, the correlation between BMI and the absolute difference of 2D- and 3D-based measurements compared with the definitive implant was estimated with regression analyses. They were performed to assess: (1) any potential association between BMI and Dorr types, (2) the accuracy of 2D- versus 3D-planned implants and (3) any potential improvements in the accuracy of 2D or 3D templating within the period covered by the study. Additionally, a multivariate linear regression analysis was calculated to evaluate 2D versus 3D templating accuracy in relation to the Dorr type. A two-sided p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Described by Dorr et al. [28], the three morphological patterns of the femur were named A, B and C (Fig. 1). Dorr types were assessed as follows: type A with a funnel shape and narrow diaphyseal canal; type B exhibits proximal bone loss and widening of the diaphyseal canal; type C with an extensive medullary canal and blurred appearance to the bone cortex due to cortical thinning. The Dorr classification was chosen as it allows quantification of bone quality and anatomy at the proximal femur. Furthermore, depending on Dorr type, the implant itself may be positioned slightly differently and at varying size.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Morphological types described by Dorr

Full size image

Results

A single consultant surgeon performed a total of 95 THAs with an anterolateral approach to the hip in a supine patient position independently of the pre-operative measurements conducted by another surgeon who did not perform the surgery. The study included 90 patients (85 unilateral, 10 bilateral) with a mean age of 60.5 years (SD ±7.7 years) at the time of surgery. The study group contained 41 female patients (43.2%). The mean body mass index (BMI) was 28.5 (SD ±4.9). Twenty-four patients had Dorr-type A (25.26%), 59 type B (62.11%) and 12 type C (12.63%). The majority of THAs were performed for primary coxarthrosis (n = 84; 88.4%). Rare indications included six cases of mild developmental dysplasia of the hip (6.3%), four post-traumatic coxarthroses (4.2%) and one avascular necrosis (1.1%).

The average pre-operative 2D-based planning time was 5 min compared with 16 min when the 3D-based method was used.

There was a statistically significant difference between planned and implanted cup size both for 2D- (p < 0.0001) and 3D-based measurement (p = 0.012). While the difference of the implanted stem size in the 2D-planned group (p < 0.0001) was statistically significant, there was no significant difference in the 3D-planned implanted stem size (p = 0.181; Table 1). In other words, 2D-based planning resulted in a difference of at least two stem sizes in eight cases compared with four cases when 3D-based planning was used.

Table 1 Paired t-tests for 2D- and 3D-planned implants compared with definitively used implant components
Full size table

Regarding the measurement of the planned and implanted cup size, the 3D-based measurement showed significantly higher accuracy than 2D-based measurement when compared with absolute difference (1.1 ± 1.4 versus 1.7 ± 1.8; p = 0.007). Furthermore, in terms of measurement and stem size, the 3D-based measurement showed significantly higher accuracy than the 2D-based method (0.3 ± 0.6 versus 0.7 ± 0.7; p < 0.0001) (Table 2).

Table 2 Paired t-test comparing the absolute difference of 2D-based planning and definitively implanted size compared with 3D-based planning of component size and definitive implant
Full size table

With increasing BMI, the 2D-based measurements became more inaccurate regarding stem size (p = 0.041). However, at the same time, there was no difference in cup size (p = 0.239). Notably, 3D-based measurement remained accurate, despite increasing BMI, for stem size (p = 0.533) and cup size (p = 0.479; Fig. 2). Moreover, the accuracy of 2D- and 3D-based measurement for stem size did not significantly differ between different Dorr types (p = 0.379 and p = 0.187, respectively).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Correlation between accuracy of 2D- and 3D-based measurement of stem size with increasing BMI

Full size image

Although the accuracy of 2D templating did not improve during the time period covered by the study [b = 0.0026 (SE 0.0025); p = 0.295], 3D templating showed a tendency to be more accurate when more measurements were performed [b = −0.0046 (SE 0.0022), p = 0.045].

Remarkably, 3D templating was more accurate in predicting actual stem size compared with 2D templating, irrespective of the Dorr type and BMI (p < 0.001; Table 3).

Table 3 Multivariate linear regression analysis for the absolute difference from planned to definitively implanted component
Full size table

Discussion

We retrospectively analysed the accuracy of 95 pre-operative digital THA templates. According to the present study, 3D templating is more precise in predicting definitively implanted cup and stem size than 2D templating. Furthermore, the former procedure allows reliable prediction of implant size with increasing BMI, while the accuracy of 2D templating decreases steadily.

This study has significant limitations. First, as only one THA system was used, the results are not necessarily applicable to other implant systems, and the results are not convertible to other stems. Second, the majority of THAs in the present study were performed for conventional primary coxarthrosis, as well as a few cases of mild hip dysplasia, post-traumatic arthritis and avascular necrosis. Thus, the accuracy of 2D and 3D templating in more complex anatomical configurations remains unclear. On the other hand, all operations were performed by the same surgeon, allowing unbiased estimation of the reliability of 2D and 3D templating. Furthermore, 3D templating showed an improvement in accuracy over time, possibly due to the physician’s increased experience with the software. Nevertheless, good planning is essential owing to the metaphyseal anchorage of the cementless short stem system and the flat learning curve for implantation (Figs. 3, 4).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Pictures of 3D templating Hectec mediCAD hip 3D

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure 4

Pictures of 2D templating Hectec mediCAD hip 2D

Full size image

Many studies have already shown that CT-based 3D templating is associated with excellent reliability regarding THA component size and alignment [29,30,31]. In addition, implants to be used for THA in patients with anatomical variances such as developmental dysplasia of the hip or extremely reduced caput–collum–diaphyseal (CCD) angles can be planned more reliably with 3D templating regardless of the surgeon’s experience [29, 31, 32].

Owing to the increasing prevalence of obesity worldwide and its association with comorbidities such as osteoarthritis, more and more patients with a BMI > 30 kg/m2 undergo THA [33,34,35]. However, obese patients are at a significantly higher risk of developing post-operative complications, including re-admission, dislocations, superficial wound healing deficits and periprosthetic joint infections [36]. Therefore, reliable pre-operative templating is necessary to decrease the operation time and, thus, possible complications. Several studies have shown that meticulous preparation reduces operation time and complications in case of increased BMI [34, 37]. However, the increased Compton scattering and photoelectric effect with higher BMI may impair 2D templating. At the same time, CT-based 3D templating on both the axial and sagittal planes may still allow accurate planning of implant components. Despite the increasing BMI, the 3D measurement remained accurate for the stem and the cup, while the 2D templating lost its accuracy.

Furthermore, upon multiple linear regression, 3D templating was more accurate than 2D templating in the context of definitively used stem size, irrespective of BMI or Dorr type.

Although we still lack evidence that a perfect match between planned and actual implant size (and position) has a positive impact on clinical outcome [7], precise pre-operative planning is vital to shorten the surgery time and thus potentially reduce the infection rate [38].

It should be noted that only low-dose CT scans should be performed for pre-operative 3D templating, as the radiation exposure of CT scans is relatively higher than in conventional X-rays. However, Henckel et al. [39] reported that specific protocols that combine filters and image post-processing on multiple detector helical CT scans could reduce the radiation dose to a level comparable to standard radiographs. Nevertheless, the total cost per patient with THA may increase with 3D templating [40].

Conclusion

The main advantage of 3D-based planning is higher accuracy, especially when dealing with obese patients. However, this process is associated with an extended planning time and increased exposure to radiation. Nonetheless, 3D templating is justifiable for patients with expected intra-operative difficulties caused by high BMI owing to its significantly higher accuracy compared with 2D templating.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Code availability

Not applicable.

References

  1. Learmonth ID, Young C, Rorabeck C (2007) The operation of the century: total hip replacement. Lancet 370:1508–1519. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60457-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Siopack JS, Jergesen HE (1995) Total hip arthroplasty. West J Med 162:243–249

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Ferguson RJ, Palmer AJ, Taylor A et al (2018) Hip replacement. Lancet (London, England). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31777-X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bayliss LE, Culliford D, Monk AP et al (2017) The effect of patient age at intervention on risk of implant revision after total replacement of the hip or knee: a population-based cohort study. Lancet 389:1424–1430. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30059-4

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Geesink RG, Hoefnagels NH (1995) Six-year results of hydroxyapatite-coated total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg. 77:534–547. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.77B4.7615595

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. McKellop H, Shen FW, Lu B et al (1999) Development of an extremely wear-resistant ultra high molecular weight polyethylene for total hip replacements. J Orthop Res 17:157–167. https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.1100170203

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Colombi A, Schena D, Castelli CC (2019) Total hip arthroplasty planning. EFORT Open Rev 4:626–632. https://doi.org/10.1302/2058-5241.4.180075

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Schmidutz F, Steinbrück A, Wanke-Jellinek L et al (2012) The accuracy of digital templating: a comparison of short-stem total hip arthroplasty and conventional total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop (SICOT) 36:1767–1772. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-012-1532-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Gamble P, de Beer J, Petruccelli D et al (2010) The accuracy of digital templating in uncemented total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 25:529–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2009.04.011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Dammerer D, Keiler A, Herrnegger S et al (2021) Accuracy of digital templating of uncemented total hip arthroplasty at a certified arthroplasty center: a retrospective comparative study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-021-03836-w

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Si H-B, Zeng Y, Cao F et al (2015) Accuracy of a simple digital templating in primary uncemented total hip arthroplasty. Chin Med Sci J 30:150–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1001-9294(15)30039-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Norman TL, Shultz T, Noble G et al (2013) Bone creep and short and long term subsidence after cemented stem total hip arthroplasty (THA). J Biomech 46:949–955. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2012.12.010

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Van EE, Hendrickx M, Scheerlinck T (2010) Uncemented femoral stem design influences the occurrence rate of postoperative fractures after primary hip arthroplasty: a comparison of the Image and Profile stems. Acta orthopaedica Belgica 76

  14. Gómez LFU, Gaitán-Lee H, Duarte MA et al (2021) Precision and accuracy of pre-surgical planning of non-cemented total hip replacement with calibrated digital images and acetates. J Orthop Surg Res. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-021-02584-2

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. H. Blackley, G. Howell, C. Rorabeck (2000) Planning and management of the difficult primary hip replacement: preoperative planning and technical considerations. undefined

  16. Eggli S, Pisan M, Müller ME (1998) The value of preoperative planning for total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg 80:382–390. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.80b3.7764

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hoikka V, Paavilainen T, Lindholm TS et al (1987) Measurement and restoration of equality in length of the lower limbs in total hip replacement. Skeletal Radiol 16:442–446. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00350537

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Holzer LA, Scholler G, Wagner S et al (2019) The accuracy of digital templating in uncemented total hip arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 139:263–268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-018-3080-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Flecher X, Pearce O, Parratte S et al (2010) Custom cementless stem improves hip function in young patients at 15-year followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468:747–755. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-009-1045-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Bourne RB, Rorabeck CH (2002) Soft tissue balancing: the hip. J Arthroplasty 17:17–22. https://doi.org/10.1054/arth.2002.33263

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Asayama I, Chamnongkich S, Simpson KJ et al (2005) Reconstructed hip joint position and abductor muscle strength after total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 20:414–420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2004.01.016

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Sariali E, Mouttet A, Pasquier G et al (2009) Accuracy of reconstruction of the hip using computerised three-dimensional pre-operative planning and a cementless modular neck. J Bone Joint Surg 91:333–340. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.91B3.21390

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Issa K, Pivec R, Boyd B et al (2012) Comparing the accuracy of radiographic preoperative digital templating for a second- versus a first-generation THA stem. Orthopedics 35:1028–1034. https://doi.org/10.3928/01477447-20121120-03

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Sariali E, Mauprivez R, Khiami F et al (2012) Accuracy of the preoperative planning for cementless total hip arthroplasty. A randomised comparison between three-dimensional computerised planning and conventional templating. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 98:151–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2011.09.023

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Whiddon DR, Bono JV (2008) Digital templating in total hip arthroplasty. Instr Course Lect 57:273–279

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Brenneis M, Braun S, van Drongelen S et al (2021) Accuracy of preoperative templating in total hip arthroplasty with special focus on stem morphology: a randomized comparison between common digital and three-dimensional planning using biplanar radiographs. J Arthroplasty 36:1149–1155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2020.10.016

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Mainard D, Barbier O, Knafo Y et al (2017) Accuracy and reproducibility of preoperative three-dimensional planning for total hip arthroplasty using biplanar low-dose radiographs: a pilot study. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 103:531–536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2017.03.001

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Dorr LD, Faugere M-C, Mackel AM et al (1993) Structural and cellular assessment of bone quality of proximal femur. Bone 14:231–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/8756-3282(93)90146-2

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Osmani FA, Thakkar S, Ramme A et al (2017) Variance in predicted cup size by 2-dimensional vs 3-dimensional computerized tomography-based templating in primary total hip arthroplasty. Arthroplast Today 3:289–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artd.2016.09.003

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Viceconti M, Lattanzi R, Antonietti B et al (2003) CT-based surgical planning software improves the accuracy of total hip replacement preoperative planning. Med Eng Phys 25:371–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1350-4533(03)00018-3

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Wako Y, Nakamura J, Miura M et al (2018) Interobserver and intraobserver reliability of three-dimensional preoperative planning software in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 33:601–607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2017.08.031

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Kuroda K, Kabata T, Maeda T et al (2014) The value of computed tomography based navigation in revision total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop 38:711–716. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-013-2166-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. (2013) Obesity and total joint arthroplasty: a literature based review. J Arthroplasty 28:714–721. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2013.02.011

  34. Tohidi M, Brogly SB, Lajkosz K et al (2019) Ten-year risk of complication and mortality after total hip arthroplasty in morbidly obese patients: a population study. Can J Surg 62:442–449. https://doi.org/10.1503/cjs.017318

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Smith KB, Smith MS (2016) Obesity statistics. Prim Care 43(121–35):ix. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pop.2015.10.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Onggo JR, Onggo JD, de Steiger R et al (2020) Greater risks of complications, infections, and revisions in the obese versus non-obese total hip arthroplasty population of 2,190,824 patients: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Osteoarthr Cartil 28:31–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2019.10.005

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Mouchti S, Whitehouse MR, Sayers A et al (2018) The association of body mass index with risk of long-term revision and 90-day mortality following primary total hip replacement: findings from the national joint registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle Of Man. J Bone Joint Surg Am 100:2140–2152. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.18.00120

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Wang Q, Goswami K, Shohat N et al (2019) Longer operative time results in a higher rate of subsequent periprosthetic joint infection in patients undergoing primary joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 34:947–953. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2019.01.027

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Henckel J, Richards R, Lozhkin K et al (2006) Very low-dose computed tomography for planning and outcome measurement in knee replacement. The imperial knee protocol. J Bone Joint Surg 88:1513–1518. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.88B11.17986

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Huppertz A, Radmer S, Asbach P et al (2011) Computed tomography for preoperative planning in minimal-invasive total hip arthroplasty: radiation exposure and cost analysis. Eur J Radiol 78:406–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.11.024

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedics and Trauma, Medical University of Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 5, 8036, Graz, Austria

    Patrick Reinbacher, Maria Anna Smolle, Joerg Friesenbichler, Alexander Draschl, Andreas Leithner & Werner Maurer-Ertl

Authors
  1. Patrick Reinbacher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maria Anna Smolle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joerg Friesenbichler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alexander Draschl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Andreas Leithner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Werner Maurer-Ertl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

WME, AL and JF were responsible for design of the work. Data acquisition was performed by AD and PR. MAS and JF were responsible for statistical analysis. The primary manuscript draft was written by PR, WME, AD and AL. JF, AD, MAS and AL were responsible for revision of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maria Anna Smolle.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The present study has been approved by the institutional review board (IRB-No. 28–152 ex 15/16). All patients gave their written informed consent prior to being included in this study.

Consent for publication

As no patient-identifying information is made public, no specific consent for publication was obtained from patients.

Competing interests

Prof. Leithner receives institutional, educational grants from Johnson & Johnson, Alphamed, Implantec and Globus, outside the submitted work. The remaining authors have no competing interests to declare.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Reinbacher, P., Smolle, M.A., Friesenbichler, J. et al. Pre-operative templating in THA using a short stem system: precision and accuracy of 2D versus 3D planning method. J Orthop Traumatol 23, 16 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s10195-022-00634-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s10195-022-00634-x

Keywords

  • Total hip arthroplasty
  • Templating
  • Short stem
  • 2D
  • 3D