Skip to main content
. 2023 Nov 7;47:100–105. doi: 10.1016/j.jor.2023.11.001

Table 1.

3-D vs 2-D.

1 3-D Templating 2-D Templating P-value
**Acetabular Component Accuracy**
Accurate to exact size 289/290 99.7% 114/290 39.3% <0.001
Total templated smaller 133/290 45.8% 0/290 0.0% <0.001
Total templated larger 0/290 0.0% 43/290 14.8% <0.001
Most common size deviation
2 mm smaller 99/290 34.1% 0/290 0.0% <0.001
4 mm smaller 29/290 10.0% 0/290 0.0% <0.001
6 mm smaller 3/290 1.0% 0/290 0.0% 0.088
8 mm smaller 1/290 0.3% 0/290 0.0% 1.000
10 mm smaller 1/290 0.3% 0/290 0.0% 1.000
2 mm larger 0/290 0.0% 36/290 12.4% <0.001
4 mm larger 0/290 0.0% 4/290 1.4% 0.043
6 mm larger 0/290 0.0% 3/290 1.0% 0.088



**Femoral Component Accuracy**
Accurate to exact size 161/255 63.1% 135/255 52.9% 0.015
Within one size of final implant 246/255 96.5% 241/255 94.5% 0.562
Stem 1 size smaller 48/255 18.8% 69/255 27.1% 0.022
Stem 1 size larger 37/255 14.5% 37/255 14.5% 1.000
Stem 2 sizes smaller 8/255 3.1% 8/255 3.1% 1.000
Stem 3 sizes smaller 1/255 0.4% 1/255 0.4% 1.000
Stem 5 sizes smaller 0/255 0.0% 1/255 0.4% 0.281
Stem 2 sizes larger 0/255 0.0% 3/255 1.2% 0.062
Stem 3 sizes larger 0/255 0.0% 1/255 0.4% 0.281



**Lateral Femoral Offset Accuracy**
Matched the plan 290/290 100.0% 222/255 87.0% <0.001
Changed after 3D templating 0/290 0.0% 33/255 13.0% <0.001
Switched from 132-degree to 127-degree offset 0/290 0.0% 31/255 12.0% <0.001
Changed from 127-degree to 132-degree offset stem 0/290 0.0% 2/255 1.0% 0.088