RESUMEN
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Augmented reality (AR) has gained popularity in various sectors, including gaming, entertainment, and healthcare. The desire for improved surgical navigation within orthopaedic surgery has led to the evaluation of the feasibility and usability of AR in the operating room (OR). However, the safe and effective use of AR technology in the OR necessitates a proper understanding of its capabilities and limitations. This review aims to describe the fundamental elements of AR, highlight limitations for use within the field of orthopaedic surgery, and discuss potential areas for development. RECENT FINDINGS: To date, studies have demonstrated evidence that AR technology can be used to enhance navigation and performance in orthopaedic procedures. General hardware and software limitations of the technology include the registration process, ergonomics, and battery life. Other limitations are related to the human response factors such as inattentional blindness, which may lead to the inability to see complications within the surgical field. Furthermore, the prolonged use of AR can cause eye strain and headache due to phenomena such as the vergence-convergence conflict. AR technology may prove to be a better alternative to current orthopaedic surgery navigation systems. However, the current limitations should be mitigated to further improve the feasibility and usability of AR in the OR setting. It is important for both non-clinicians and clinicians to work in conjunction to guide the development of future iterations of AR technology and its implementation into the OR workflow.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Large, circumferential glenoid labral tears are an uncommon injury affecting young, athletic patients. There are limited data describing the clinical presentation of patients with larger tears, especially 270° and 360° labral tears. Additionally, examination and imaging findings have poor reliability in diagnosing these tears. The purpose of this study was to determine the clinical presentation among patients presenting with small (less than 180°), medium (180°-270°), and large (270°-360°) labral tears. METHODS: This is a retrospective comparative study of consecutive patients surgically managed by a single shoulder surgeon for all glenoid labral tears from 2018-2022. The primary outcome was demographic and preoperative clinical risk factors. Demographic data including age, sex, hand dominance, body mass index, as well as clinical presentation (subluxation vs. dislocation, instability history, and participation in contact sports) were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 188 patients met the inclusion criteria: 101 of 188 (53.70%) patients with small tears, 43 of 188 (22.90%) patients with medium tears, and 44 of 188 (23.40%) patients with large tears. Individuals with large and medium-sized labral tears were more likely to have participated in contact sports compared to those with smaller labral tears (P = .003). Medium and smaller tears were more likely to present as dominant-side injury (P = .02). Furthermore, medium and large tears were more likely to present with anterior instability symptoms compared with smaller tears, which more frequently presented with posterior instability and pain (P = .003). CONCLUSION: Males participating in contact sports were the most common demographic population presenting with large, 270°-360° labral tears. Instability was the primary complaint rather than pain, and compared with small tears, medium and large tears were more likely to present with primary anterior instability. Although arthroscopic repair of 270°-360° labral tears can yield excellent clinical outcomes similar to smaller tears, identifying factors associated with larger glenoid labral tears may help in surgical planning and patient counseling.
