Background: Revision hip arthroplasty presents a surgical challenge, necessitating meticulous preoperative planning to avert complications like periprosthetic fractures and aseptic loosening. Historically, assessment of the accuracy of three-dimensional (3D) versus two-dimensional (2D) templating has focused exclusively on primary hip arthroplasty. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective study, we examined the accuracy of 3D templating for acetabular revision cups in 30 patients who underwent revision hip arthroplasty. Utilizing computed tomography scans of the patients' pelvis and 3D templates of the implants (Aesculap Plasmafit, B. Braun; Aesculap Plasmafit Revision, B. Braun; Avantage Acetabular System, Zimmerbiomet, EcoFit 2M, Implantcast; Tritanium Revision, Stryker), we performed 3D templating and positioned the acetabular cup implants accordingly. To evaluate accuracy, we compared the planned sizes of the acetabular cups in 2D and 3D with the sizes implanted during surgery. Results: An analysis was performed to examine potential influences on templating accuracy, specifically considering factors such as gender and body mass index (BMI). Significant statistical differences (p < 0.001) in the accuracy of size prediction were observed between 3D and 2D templating. Personalized 3D templating exhibited an accuracy rate of 66.7% for the correct prediction of the size of the acetabular cup, while 2D templating achieved an exact size prediction in only 26.7% of cases. There were no statistically significant differences between the 2D and 3D templating methods regarding gender or BMI. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that 3D templating improves the accuracy of predicting acetabular cup sizes in revision arthroplasty when compared to 2D templating. However, it should be noted that the predicted implant size generated through 3D templating tended to overestimate the implanted implant size by an average of 1.3 sizes.
Keywords: 2D; 3D; acetabular cup; computed tomography; hip (joint); revision arthroplasty.