Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The accuracy of external calibration markers in digital templating using the double marker and single marker method: a comparative study

  • Hip Arthroplasty
  • Published:
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Digital templating is an essential step in the preoperative planning of total hip arthroplasty (THA). Previous studies have suggested that templating with the double marker method may be more accurate than a single marker method in the general population and in obese patients. The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy in the preoperative component selection between the King Mark calibration device and the conventional metal ball method. Additionally, we examined whether King Mark offered any advantage over the standard metal ball in the preoperative selection of component sizes for obese patients.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent preoperative digital templating for THA in our center from January 2014 to January 2016 with King Mark device and marker ball. We compared the preoperative template component size and offset with the intraoperative definite implant size. The accuracy was defined as the difference between preoperative and intraoperative component sizes. The overall accepted calibration was defined as an exact match ± one size. Patients were stratified into two cohorts according to the calibration method: standard marker ball technique and King Mark technique.

Results

126 THA underwent digital calibration. 79 patients underwent a preoperative templating using the King Mark calibration device. 47 patients were templated using a conventional marker ball. The overall adequate preoperative planning of the acetabular cup (exact or ± 1 size match) in the King Mark group did not differ from the single marker method (74.7% and 74.5%, respectively, p = 0.979). No significant difference was noted in the overall accepted calibration of the femoral stem (exact or ± 1 size match) between the marker ball group and the King Mark group (58.2% and 70.2%, respectively, p = 0.179). The King Mark group showed a better preoperative planning for the stem’s offset compared to the marker ball group (77.2% % and 61.7%, respectively, p = 0.062). For the obese patient cohort, no significant difference was noted between the King Mark group and the marker ball group in the exact prediction of the acetabular cup and the femoral stem, (p = 0.31 and p = 0.15, respectively).

Conclusions

Our study found no difference between the King Mark method and the conventional metal ball method in the ability to accurately predict component sizes. In the subgroup of obese patients, the King Mark technique offered no advantage for accurately predicting component sizes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Shin JK, Son SM, Kim TW et al (2016) Accuracy and reliability of preoperative on-screen templating using digital radiographs for total hip arthroplasty. Hip pelvis 28:201–207. https://doi.org/10.5371/hp.2016.28.4.201

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Kosashvili Y, Shasha N, Olschewski E et al (2009) Digital versus conventional templating techniques in preoperative planning for total hip arthroplasty. Can J Surg 52:6–11

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Eggli S, Pisan M, Muller ME (1998) The value of preoperative planning for total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 80:382–390. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.80b3.7764

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Boese CK, Wilhelm S, Haneder S et al (2019) Influence of calibration on digital templating of hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop 43:1799–1805. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-4120-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Alnahhal A, Aslam-pervez N, Sheikh HQ (2019) Templating. Hip Arthroplasty 7:672–685

    Google Scholar 

  6. Baxter JA, Barlow T, Karthikeyan S et al (2012) The accuracy of automatic calibration of digital pelvic radiographs using two different scale markers: a comparative study. Hip Int 22:82–89. https://doi.org/10.5301/HIP.2012.9044

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. King RJ, Makrides P, Gill JA et al (2009) A novel method of accurately calculating the radiological magnification of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br 91:1217–1222. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.91B9.22615

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Franken M, Grimm B, Heyligers I (2010) A comparison of four systems for calibration when templating for total hip replacement with digital radiography. J Bone Joint Surg Br 92:136–141. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.92B1.22257

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Boese CK, Lechler P, Rose L et al (2015) Calibration markers for digital templating in total hip arthroplasty. PLoS ONE 10:e0128529–e0128529. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0128529

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Boese CK, Wilhelm S, Haneder S et al (2019) Dual-position calibration markers for total hip arthroplasty: theoretical comparison to fixed calibration and single marker method. Int Orthop 43:589–595. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-4034-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bayne CO, Krosin M, Barber TC (2009) Evaluation of the accuracy and use of x-ray markers in digital templating for total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 24:407–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2007.11.020

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Wimsey S, Pickard R, Shaw G (2006) Accurate scaling of digital radiographs of the pelvis. A prospective trial of two methods. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88:1508–1512. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.88B11.18017

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. The B, Kootstra JWJ, Hosman AH et al (2007) Comparison of techniques for correction of magnification of pelvic X-rays for hip surgery planning. J Digit Imaging 20:329–335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-006-1042-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Sershon RA, Diaz A, Bohl DD, Levine BR (2017) Effect of body mass index on digital templating for total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 32:1024–1026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2016.09.020

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kniesel B, Konstantinidis L, Hirschmuller A et al (2014) Digital templating in total knee and hip replacement: an analysis of planning accuracy. Int Orthop 38:733–739. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-013-2157-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

There is no funding source.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Sourasky Medical Center, University of Tel Aviv, Tel Aviv, Israel

    Y. Warschawski, I. Shichman, O. Shaked, N. Amzallag, N. Snir & A. Gold

  2. University of Tel Aviv, Tel Aviv, Israel

    S. Morgan

  3. NYU Langone, Division of Orthopedics-Adult Joint Reconstruction, New York University, New York, NY, USA

    S. Garceau

Authors
  1. Y. Warschawski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. I. Shichman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. Morgan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. O. Shaked
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. S. Garceau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. N. Amzallag
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. N. Snir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. A. Gold
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Y. Warschawski.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Warschawski, Y., Shichman, I., Morgan, S. et al. The accuracy of external calibration markers in digital templating using the double marker and single marker method: a comparative study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 140, 1559–1565 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-020-03569-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-020-03569-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation