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 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 |
- 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