Do the sizes of total hip arthroplasty implants match between 3D planning software and 2D templating?

The use of three-dimensional (3D) planning before a total hip arthroplasty (THA) procedure is becoming increasingly popular as it offers several theoretical benefits: better restoration of a patient's anatomy, fewer intraoperative problems, and lower THA cost. It is said to be more accurate than two-dimensional (2D) planning, but as far as we know, no study has investigated how well the implant sizes match between 3D and 2D planning for a surgeon who is just starting to use 3D planning. Consistent implant sizes would make it easier for a surgeon to transition from one system to another. This led us to conduct a retrospective comparative study to: (1) compare how well the implant sizes match between a 3D planning system and a 2D planning method (conventional radiography using templates); (2) determine if the sizes planned on the 3D system match the implants that were used in the patient; (3) determine if the sizes planned with the 2D method match the implants that were used in the patient.

There is a good match in the implant sizes between the 3D and 2D planning.

A retrospective observational, single-surgeon study was done with patients who underwent THA between January 2019 and September 2021 at a single teaching hospital. For each patient, the size of the THA implants was planned preoperatively in 3D using proprietary software (Optimized Positioning System™, Corin) and 2D templating. These patients were the first to be operated on by this surgeon based on 3D planning.

Forty-nine patients were included. The implant size matched exactly between the two planning methods for 20% (10/49) of cups [one size larger with 3D in 35% of hips (17/49) and two sizes larger in 20% of hips (10/49)], for 53% (26/49) of femoral stems [one size smaller with 3D in 53% of hips (26/49)] and for 14% (7/49) of complete THA implant systems (cup, femoral stem, femoral head). The size planned in 3D was the same as the cup size implanted in 51% (25/49) of hips, as the femoral stem size in 65% (32/49) and as the complete THA system in 22% (11/49). The cup was within one size in 88% (43/49) of hips and the femoral stem was within one size in 98% (48/49) of hips. The size planned in 2D was the same as the cup size implanted in 45% (22/49) of hips, as the femoral stem size in 63% (32/49) and as the complete THA system in 18% (9/49). The cup was within one size in 86% (42/49) of hips and the femoral stem was within one size in 96% (47/49) of hips with 2D templating. There was no statistically significant difference in the size matching between the 2D and 3D techniques for either the implanted cup (p=0.5) or the implanted femoral stem (p=0.8).

There is a poor match between the implant sizes determined by 3D and 2D planning. Based on our findings, the shift from 2D templating to 3D planning must be done gradually given the learning curve associated with 3D systems.

III; comparative retrospective study.