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 [PMID: 35317405 DOI: 10.5312/wjo.v13.i2.139]
This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
World J Orthop. Feb 18, 2022; 13(2): 139-149 Published online Feb 18, 2022. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v13.i2.139
Table 1 Patient and radiological characteristics
Patient characteristic
(n = 100)
Female, %
72
Age, mean (range)
66.7 (41-90)
BMI, mean (range)
27.3 (18.7-42.8)
Right hip, %
54
Indication, %
Primary coxarthrosis
98
Perthes coxarthrosis
1
Posttraumatic coxarthrosis
1
Femoral offset (mm), mean (range)
47 (30.5-67)
Acetabular offset (mm), mean (range)
32.5 (22.5-47.5)
Femoro-acetabular offset (mm), mean (range)
80 (62-113)
CCD-angle (°)
128.6 (114.5-146)
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
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
Table 4 Intra-observer reliability
Student
Resident
Pre-templating FAO
0.99
0.99
Post-templating FAO short stem
0.98
0.98
Post-templating FAO conventional stem
0.92
0.93
CCD-angle
0.93
0.94
Table 5 Inter-observer reliability
Student vs Resident
Student vs Hip surgeon
Resident vs Hip surgeon
Pre-templating FAO
0.98
0.93
0.95
Pre-templating FO
0.97
0.93
0.94
Pre-templating AO
0.97
0.91
0.92
Post-templating FAO short stem
0.97
0.93
0.95
Post-templating FAO conventional stem
0.90
0.84
0.86
CCD-angle
0.87
0.81
0.76
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