4.7 Article

Overall Accuracy of Radiological Digital Planning for Total Hip Arthroplasty in a Specialized Orthopaedics Hospital

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 12, 期 13, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12134503

关键词

total hip arthroplasty; digital planning; digital templating; radiological planning; radiology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Preoperative radiological planning is crucial for predicting implant size and positioning in total hip arthroplasty. Our study evaluated the accuracy of digital templating in 215 patients and found that our method was highly effective, with accurate predictions in 95.8% of cases for the stem and 94.9% for the cup in anteroposterior view only, and even more accurate results in lateral view. Exact prediction rates for stem size and stem neck length were 77.7% and 75.35%, respectively.
Preoperative radiological planning is a key factor in the prediction of implant size and positioning that influences surgical time, the risk of complications, and functional outcomes. We have tested the accuracy of the digital templating performed in our hospital for a sample of 215 patients that underwent total hip arthroplasty. We assessed the accuracy of correctly predicting implant size for the femoral and acetabular components, as well as the stem neck length. We found that our method of templating proved accurate (within one size) in 95.8% of cases for the stem and 94.9% for the cup when using the anteroposterior view only, while the lateral view was accurate in 95.8% of cases for the stem and 97.2% for the cup. Exact prediction of the stem size was obtained in 77.7% of cases using the anteroposterior view and 67.0% of cases on the lateral view, and 73.0% and 74.4% of cases for the cup on the AP and LL views, respectively. Stem neck size was predicted exactly in 75.35% of cases and within one size in 93.49% of cases. We concluded that our method of digital templating using dedicated software is highly effective in accurately predicting implant size.

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

4.7
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