Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 10, 2026
Individualized Stem-positioning in Calcar-guided Short-stem Total Hip Arthroplasty
Published on: February 27, 2018
Is computerised 3D templating more accurate than 2D templating to predict size of components in primary total hip
Erik Schiffner1, David Latz1, Pascal Jungbluth1
11 Department of Trauma and Hand Surgery, Heinrich Heine University Hospital, Duesseldorf, Germany.
Introduction:
The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of preoperative templating in total hip arthroplasty (THA) using conventional 2-dimensional (2D) and computed tomography (CT)-based 3-dimensional (3D) measures.
Methods:
One hundred and sixteen consecutive primary THAs were analysed. The preoperative diagnosis was primary osteoarthritis in all cases. The 2D templating and the 3D templating were performed by two different residents. All templating results were available for the orthopaedic surgeon performing the procedure. Accuracies with regard to the predicted and actual implant sizes were determined for each procedure. Implantation of the size as planned was defined as "exact", whereas the use of components within one size larger or smaller (±1) as planned were defined as "accurate."
Results:
The 3D templating was significantly more accurate in predicting implant sizing compared to 2D templating for primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). The difference was statistically significant for the cup templating (''exact'' p = 0.02; ''accurate'' p = 0.01) and for the stem templating (''exact'' p = 0.04; ''accurate'' p = 0.01).
Conclusion:
Our results support the superiority of 3D templating over 2D templating in predicting implant size.
Related Concept Videos
02:05DNA as a Genetic Template
02:05DNA as a Genetic Template
02:27Predicting Molecular Geometry
01:24Components of Language
01:23Components of Stress
Interestingly, the hidden cube faces also experience these stresses, equal and...
01:03Prediction Intervals
However, the point estimate is most likely not the exact value of the population parameter, but close to it. After calculating point estimates, we construct interval estimates, called confidence intervals or prediction intervals. This prediction interval comprises a range of values unlike the point estimate and is a better predictor of the observed sample value, y.