Abstract
PURPOSE: Minimally invasive approaches (MIS) in total hip arthroplasty (THA) show inconsistent findings regarding planning adherence in digital templating. The purpose of this study is to evaluate any difference in planning adherence between the direct anterior approach (DAA) and an anterolateral MIS approach (AL MIS) in cementless short stem THA. METHODS: A single surgeon series of 222 THAs in 208 patients with an uncemented short curved stem and a bi-hemispherical acetabular cup were screened for inclusion. A total of 118 THAs were implanted via the DAA and 72 THAs via the AL MIS were included. The planning adherence for the offset option, stem size and the acetabular cup were retrospectively evaluated. RESULTS: Planning adherence for cup size (perfect match: p = 0.763; ± 1 size: p = 0.124), offset option (0.125) and stem size (perfect match: p = 0.275; ± 1 size: p = 0.552) did not show any statistical significance. Preoperative diagnosis of avascular necrosis of the femoral head in AL MIS approach (OR 6.045; CI 1.153-31.696) or mild hip dysplasia in the general cohort poses (OR 11.789; CI 1.386-100.293) a significant risk for inadequate prediction of the offset option. CONCLUSION: digital templating for THA with an uncemented short curved stem and a bi-hemispherical acetabular cup show comparable results between a direct anterior approach and a minimally invasive anterolateral approach in supine position. Surgeons should be aware of a low planning adherence for this type of short stem in minimally invasive approaches. CONCLUSION: Digital templating for THA with an uncemented short curved stem and a bi-hemispherical acetabular cup show comparable results between a direct anterior approach and a minimally invasive anterolateral approach in supine position. Surgeons should be aware of a low planning adherence for this type of short stem in minimally invasive approaches.