Planning Accuracy and Stem Offset Assessment in Digital Two-Dimensional Versus Three-Dimensional Planning in...

Background/Objectives: Total hip arthroplasty (THA) planning is crucial for restoring hip function and minimizing complications. The present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess and compare the accuracy of 2D versus 3D preoperative planning in THA. Methods: The inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (ROSs) published in English comparing the accuracy of 2D and 3D preoperative planning for total hip arthroplasty. We excluded review articles, registers, studies not written in English, studies that did not report the cup sizing accuracy or stem sizing accuracy or give a description of the preoperative planning method used, and non-comparative studies. In June 2024, following the PRISMA 2020 statement, a systematic review and a meta-analysis of the literature were conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library. The statistical analysis software Review Manager (RevMan) version 5.4 was used to perform the meta-analysis to compare the accuracy of 2D and 3D planning, and to assess the risk of bias, the ROBINS-I tool was used. Results: The analysis included 777 patients from six studies. The analysis showed that 3D planning offers superior precision compared to 2D planning, both for the cup (96.92% vs. 87.14%) and the stem (94.72% vs. 86.28%). The forest plots assessed a better trend for 3D planning in terms of exact size prediction and accuracy within ±1 size. Conclusions: The three-dimensional method was more precise and accurate than two-dimensional planning, both for the stem and the cup. It offered a detailed three-dimensional view of the patient's anatomy. The main limitation was the challenge in finding homogeneous data regarding biomechanical parameters, surgical approaches, and different planning systems for both three-dimensional and two-dimensional methods.