4.5 Article

The accuracy of digital templating in cementless total hip arthroplasty in dysplastic hips

期刊

BMC MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS
卷 22, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12891-021-04793-6

关键词

Digital templating; Dysplasia; Cementless total hip arthroplasty; Accuracy

资金

  1. Umea University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study demonstrates that digital preoperative templating is reliable for planning cementless total hip arthroplasty in patients with developmental dysplasia of the hip, helping to select the correct component sizes and reduce surgical risks.
Background Total hip arthroplasty (THA) for developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) is a complex procedure due to associated anatomical abnormalities. We studied the extent to which preoperative digital templating is reliable when performing cementless THA in patients with DDH. Methods We templated and compared the pre- and postoperative sizes of the acetabular and femoral components and the center of rotation (COR), and analysed the postoperative cup coverage, leg length discrepancy (LLD), and stem alignment in 50 patients (56 hips) with DDH treated with THA. Results The implant size exactly matched the template size in 42.9% of cases for the acetabular component and in 38.2% of cases for the femoral component, whereas the templated +/- 1 size was used in 80.4 and 81.8% of cases for the acetabular and femoral components, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between templated and used component sizes among different DDH severity levels (acetabular cup: p = 0.30 under the Crowe classification and p = 0.94 under the Hartofilakidis classification; femoral stem: p = 0.98 and p = 0.74, respectively). There were no statistically significant differences between the planned and postoperative COR (p = 0.14 horizontally and p = 0.52 vertically). The median postoperative LLD was 7 (range 0-37) mm. Conclusion Digital preoperative templating is reliable in the planning of cementless THA in patients with DDH.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据