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 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 |
- 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