Greater trochanter morphology and association with patient demographics, surgical factors, and post-operative stem position: a retrospective assessment of 150 cementless THRs in 135 dogs

Table 3 Surgical factors and frontal plane post-operative stem position values based on trochanter grade

	I		II		III		IV		All		p value
	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
Surgical time (min)	177.5	32.8	179.8	27.9	187.5	34.7	227.0	34.2	183.2	32.9	0.003*
Technique mod (% of cases/group)	11.4		10.7		25.0		83.3		18.0		< 0.001*
Stem alignment in frontal plane (°)	−1.80	2.33	0.52	2.36	0.77	2.58	0.67	2.73	−0.47	2.61	< 0.001*
Stem translation in frontal plane (ratio)	−0.07	−0.09/0	− 0.07	−0.08/0	0	−0.07/0	− 0.09	−0.08/0	−0.07	−0.08/0	0.012^
PO-FTA (°)	18.8	14.0	20.4	14.4	20.8	9.2	20.6	5.5	20.0	12.6	0.93
Canal fill in frontal plane (%)	73.0	6.3	73.3	6.9	71.1	7.1	66.2	10.0	72.3	7.0	0.06
Stem insertion (mm)	7.0	2.7	6.1	3.0	7.0	2.9	11.2	4.2	6.8	3.1	0.001*

Key: PO-FTA post-operative femoral torsion angle, Stem depth post-operative stem insertion depth relative to the proximal greater trochanter, Technique mod technique modification during femoral broaching
*: significant difference found in ANOVA, then followed by Scheffé’s post hoc test. Stem alignment: Grade I differs from Grade II. Surgical time: Grade IV different from all other groups. Stem insertion: Grade IV different from all other groups. Technique mod: Grade IV different from all other groups
^: Non-normally distributed data reported as median and interquartile range. Kruskall-Wallis test with Dunn’s post hoc test: Grade I and Grade III are different

ISSN: 1746-6148