RESUMO
There are advocates of both two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) templating methods for planning total hip replacement. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of implant size prediction when using 2D and 3D templating methods for total hip arthroplasty, as well as to compare the inter- and intra-observer reliability in order to determine whether currently available methods are sufficiently reliable and reproducible. Medline, EMBASE and PubMed were searched to identify studies that compared the accuracy of 2D and 3D templating for total hip replacement. Results were screened using the PRISMA flowchart and included studies were assessed for their level of evidence using the Oxford CEBM criteria. Non-randomized trials were critically appraised using the MINORS tool, whilst randomized trials were assessed using the CASP RCT checklist. A series of meta-analyses of the data for accuracy were also conducted. Ten studies reported that 3D templating is an accurate and reliable method of templating for total hip replacement. Six studies compared 3D templating with 2D templating, all of which concluded that 3D templating was more accurate, with three finding a statistically significant difference. The meta-analyses showed that 3D CT templating is the most accurate method. This review supports the hypothesis that 3D templating is an accurate and reliable method of preoperative planning, which is more accurate than 2D templating for predicting implant size. However, further research is needed to ascertain the significance of this improved accuracy and whether it will yield any clinical benefit.
RESUMO
The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy and the inter- and intra-observer reliability of preoperative digital 2D templating in prosthesis size prediction for the planning of cemented or uncemented THA.This study was registered in the NIHR PROSPERO database (ID: CRD42020216649) and conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. A search of electronic databases in March 2021 found 29 papers overall. The quality of evidence was assessed using the IHE Quality Appraisal of Case Series Studies Checklist and the CASP Randomised Controlled Trials Checklist. A meta-analysis was conducted, and the accuracy was presented as proportions and the inter- and intra-observer reliability were measured using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC).Accuracy within one prosthesis size (±1) for cemented stems was 0.89 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83-0.95), cemented cups 0.78 (95% CI 0.67-0.89), uncemented stems 0.74 (95% CI 0.66-0.82) and uncemented cups 0.73 (95% CI 0.67-0.79) (test of group differences: p = 0.010). Inter-observer reliability (ICC) for uncemented cups was 0.88 (95% CI 0.85-0.91), uncemented stems 0.86 (95% CI 0.81-0.91), cemented stems 0.69 (95% CI 0.54-0.84) and cemented cups 0.68 (95% CI 0.55-0.81) (test of group differences: p = 0.004). Due to lack of data, intra-observer reliability (ICC) could only be calculated for uncemented prostheses, which for the stems was 0.90 (95% CI 0.88-0.92) and for the cups was 0.87 (95% CI 0.83-0.90) (test of group differences: p = 0.124).The accuracy of preoperative digital templating is greater for cemented prostheses, but the inter-observer reliability is greater for uncemented prostheses. The intra-observer reliability showed a high level of agreement for uncemented prostheses. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2021;6:1020-1039. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.210048.
