Copyright
©The Author(s) 2022.
World J Orthop. Feb 18, 2022; 13(2): 139-149
Published online Feb 18, 2022. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v13.i2.139
Published online Feb 18, 2022. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v13.i2.139
Table 1 Patient and radiological characteristics
Patient characteristic | (n = 100) |
Female, % | 72 |
Age, mean (range) | 66.7 (41-90) |
BMI, mean (range) | 27.3 (18.7-42.8) |
Right hip, % | 54 |
Indication, % | |
Primary coxarthrosis | 98 |
Perthes coxarthrosis | 1 |
Posttraumatic coxarthrosis | 1 |
Femoral offset (mm), mean (range) | 47 (30.5-67) |
Acetabular offset (mm), mean (range) | 32.5 (22.5-47.5) |
Femoro-acetabular offset (mm), mean (range) | 80 (62-113) |
CCD-angle (°) | 128.6 (114.5-146) |
Table 2 Determinants correlated with offset restoration
β coefficient (95%CI) | R2 | P value | |
Student | |||
CCD-angle (short stem) | -0.01 (-0.03, -0.02) | 0.002 | 0.62 |
CCD-angle (conventional stem) | 0.34 (0.18, 0.50) | 0.15 | < 0.001 |
Pre-templating FAO (short stem) | -0.004 (-0.02, 0.01) | 0.002 | 0.62 |
Pre-templating FAO (conventional stem) | -0.45 (-0.53, -0.38) | 0.63 | < 0.001 |
Resident | |||
CCD-angle (short stem) | -0.01 (-0.04, 0.02) | 0.004 | 0.55 |
CCD-angle (conventional stem) | -0.25 (-0.10, 0.41) | 0.09 | 0.002 |
Pre-templating FAO (short stem) | -0.02 (-0.04, 0.00) | 0.03 | 0.05 |
Pre-templating FAO (conventional stem) | -0.44 (-0.50, -0.38) | 0.68 | 0.000 |
Table 3 Post-templating measurements of radiographs (n = 100)
Short stem | Conventional stem | |
Post-templating measurements | ||
Femoral offset (mm), mean (range) | 51.5 (3679) | 48 (3757.5) |
Acetabular offset (mm), mean (range) | 28.5 (23.535.5) | 28.5 (23.535.5) |
Femoro-acetabular offset (mm), mean (range) | 80 (62112.5) | 76.5 (63.589.5) |
Difference pre- and post-templating | ||
Femoral offset (mm), mean (range) | 4 (-2.513) | 1 (-11.511) |
Acetabular offset (mm), mean (range) | -4 (-142.5) | -4 (-142.5) |
Femoro-acetabular offset (mm), mean (range) | 0 (-42) | -3 (-245) |
Restoration of femoral offset, % | 100 | 91 |
Restoration of femoro-acetabular offset, % | 100 | 72 |
Table 4 Intra-observer reliability
Student | Resident | |
Pre-templating FAO | 0.99 | 0.99 |
Post-templating FAO short stem | 0.98 | 0.98 |
Post-templating FAO conventional stem | 0.92 | 0.93 |
CCD-angle | 0.93 | 0.94 |
Table 5 Inter-observer reliability
Student vs Resident | Student vs Hip surgeon | Resident vs Hip surgeon | |
Pre-templating FAO | 0.98 | 0.93 | 0.95 |
Pre-templating FO | 0.97 | 0.93 | 0.94 |
Pre-templating AO | 0.97 | 0.91 | 0.92 |
Post-templating FAO short stem | 0.97 | 0.93 | 0.95 |
Post-templating FAO conventional stem | 0.90 | 0.84 | 0.86 |
CCD-angle | 0.87 | 0.81 | 0.76 |
- Citation: de Waard S, Verboom T, Bech NH, Sierevelt IN, Kerkhoffs GM, Haverkamp D. Femoroacetabular offset restoration in total hip arthroplasty; Digital templating a short stem vs a conventional stem. World J Orthop 2022; 13(2): 139-149
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2218-5836/full/v13/i2/139.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v13.i2.139