Two-Dimensional Versus Three-Dimensional Pre-Operative Planning in THA Results From A Randomized Controlled Trial

Description

The presentation, led by Adam from UCL London, discusses a study comparing 2D and 3D planning methods in preoperative surgical procedures. Adam discusses the role of imaging technologies like radiographs and CT scans in templating and predicting implant positions and sizes. He highlights how 3D planning may provide enhanced accuracy compared to 2D methods, citing previous studies that suggest benefits of using 3D techniques. Their research involved a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 60 patients who were assigned either robotic or conventional total hip arthroplasty (THA). Both planning methods utilized the Trauma CAD software and Stryker's Makoplasty, and the study aimed to measure key metrics like horizontal and vertical center of rotation, leg length discrepancy, and implant sizing accuracy. Results indicated that 3D planning led to more precise restoration of joint mechanics and better matching of implant sizes to patient anatomy compared to 2D planning. Specifically, 3D methods demonstrated higher accuracy in predicting offset leg length and showed less tendency to undersize implants, particularly relevant in varying osteoarthritis patterns. The study concludes that adopting 3D planning could significantly enhance surgical outcomes, although it recognizes the limitations of its single-center design and sample size.

Specialties

Conferences