Accuracy of Preoperative 3D vs 2D Digital Templating for Cementless Total Hip Arthroplasty Using a Direct Anterior Approach

Background: An important aspect of preoperative planning for total hip arthroplasty is templating. Although two-dimensional (2D) templating remains the gold standard, computerized tomography (CT)-based three-dimensional (3D) templating is a novel preoperative planning technique. This study aims to compare the accuracy of a 2D and 3D plan using an anterior approach for the placement of the same uncemented prosthesis. Methods: Two consecutive cohorts of 100 patients each were retrospectively analyzed. We analyzed the accuracy of the size of the implant (stem, cup, head), the length of head, and offset. As a secondary criterion, we analyzed the rates of stems with more than 3° of varus, fracture, and/or subsidence at 3 months postoperatively. Results: Within the exact size, the accuracy of the stem and cup size with the 2D plan was 69% and 56%, respectively. With the 3D plan accuracy being 88% (P = .0046) and 96% (P < .0001), respectively. Regarding size and length of the implant head, accuracy was 86% and 82% with the 2D plan and 100% (P < .0001) and 94% (P = .016), respectively, with the 3D plan. The offset of the implants increased beyond 3 mm in 23% of patients in the 2D group and in 5% of patients in the 3D group (P = .0003). The rate of varus stems was 10% in the 2D group and 2% in the 3D group (P = .03). Two fractures and one case of subsidence occurred in the 2D group. None were identified in the 3D cohort. Conclusions: A CT-based 3D plan is more accurate for implant size selection, allows better prosthetic offset, and reduces the rate of varus stems