BACKGROUND

Preoperative planning in total hip arthroplasty (THA) involves utilizing radiographs or advanced imaging modalities, including computerized tomography scans, for precise prediction of implant sizing and positioning. This study aimed to compare 3-dimensional (3D) versus 2-dimensional (2D) preoperative planning in primary THA with respect to key surgical metrics, including restoration of the horizontal and vertical center of rotation (COR), combined offset, and leg length.

METHODS

This study included 60 patients undergoing primary THA for symptomatic hip osteoarthritis (OA), randomly allocated to either robotic arm-assisted or conventional THA. Digital 2D templating and 3D planning using the robotic software were performed for all patients. All measurements to evaluate the accuracy of templating methods were conducted on the preoperative computerized tomography scanogram, using the contralateral hip as a reference. Sensitivity analyses explored differences between 2D and 3D planning in patients who had superolateral or medial OA patterns.

RESULTS

Compared to 2D templating, 3D templating was associated with less medialization of the horizontal COR (-1.2 versus -0.2 mm, P = .002) and more accurate restoration of the vertical COR (1.63 versus 0.3 mm, P < .001) with respect to the contralateral side. Furthermore, 3D templating was superior for planned restoration of leg length (+0.23 versus -0.74 mm, P = .019). Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that in patients who had medial OA, 3D planning resulted in less medialization of horizontal COR and less offset reduction. Conversely, in patients who had superolateral OA, there was less lateralization of horizontal COR and less offset increase using 3D planning. Additionally, 3D planning showed superior reproducibility for stem, acetabular cup sizes, and neck angle, while 2D planning often led to smaller stem and cup sizes.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicated higher accuracy in the planned restoration of native joint mechanics using 3D planning. Additionally, this study highlights distinct variances between the 2 planning methods across different OA pattern subtypes, offering valuable insights for clinicians employing 2D planning.