ABSTRACT
AIMS: Pre-operative templating for total hip replacement (THR) surgery leads to more accurate implant sizing and positioning. This study aimed to compare the KingMark™ dual-marker system for magnification calibration to the current gold standard single-marker system in accuracy of predicting implant size and restoration of leg length post-operatively. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of patients who had primary THR surgery from 2013 to 2019 by a single surgeon. Patients were in two cohorts whose operations were completed at separate healthcare facilities. Patients in the first cohort had pre-operative templating using the KingMark system; patients in the second cohort had templating using a single-marker. For all patients, pre-operative radiographs were reviewed; predicted implants noted; and leg length discrepancies calculated. These were compared to post-operative data. We then tested the null hypothesis that there was no difference between the templating methods for prediction accuracy of implant size and achieving restoration of leg length. RESULTS: A total of 121 patients were included in the KingMark cohort, and 104 were included in the single-marker cohort. In the KingMark cohort, 83.5% of patients had implantation of a cup within one size of that predicted, compared to 71.2% of the single-marker cohort. This superiority was statistically significant. There was a greater proportion of exact cup size predictions in the KingMark cohort, but this was not statistically significant. We did not find any significant difference between the cohorts for stem size, or stem placement, or reduction of leg length discrepancy. CONCLUSION: We have demonstrated statistically significant superiority of the KingMark over a single-marker templating system for predicting cup size in primary THR surgery. For post-operative restoration of leg length, our study did not show any advantage of KingMark templating compared to single-marker templating.
