ArticleArthroplasty today2025
Two-Dimensional Preoperative Digital Templating is Less Accurate When Using a Collared Triple Taper Stem Versus a Single Taper Design.
Article in Arthroplasty today, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Collared triple taper stems (CTTS) and single taper stems (STS) have an excellent performance in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). While 2-dimensional radiographic templating is accurate for STS, data are lacking for CTTS. We hypothesize that CTTS' more anatomical design in the anteroposterior dimension may lead to inaccurate templating sizing. This study compared templating accuracy of CTTS to a predecessor STS in THA patients. Methods: 106 THA performed with CTTS were compared to 106 THA performed with STS by 2 high-volume surgeons. The stems chosen for comparison were manufactured by the same company, use the same templating software, shared an identical medial-lateral profile, and offered the same size range. The ability of digital templating to predict final implant size was evaluated. Results: Template to stem accuracy was 36.8% for CTTS and 49.1% for STS ( Conclusions: The accuracy of conventional templating for CTTS is lower than the predecessor STS, with the template often suggesting a larger size. Bi-planar or 3-dimensional preoperative templating could potentially be a more accurate technique, especially during the initial learning curve with these stems.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.