Glenoid component placement in reverse shoulder arthroplasty assisted with augmented reality through a head-mounted display leads to low deviation between planned and postoperative parameters.

BACKGROUND: Navigated augmented reality (AR) through a head-mounted display (HMD) may lead to accurate glenoid component placement in reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). The purpose of this study is to evaluate the deviation between planned, intra- and postoperative inclination, retroversion, entry point, depth, and rotation of the glenoid component placement assisted by a navigated AR through HMD during RSA. METHODS: Both shoulders of 6 fresh frozen human cadavers, free from fractures or other bony pathologies, were used. Preoperative computed tomography (CT) scans were used for the 3-dimensional (3D) planning. The glenoid component placement was assisted using a navigated AR system through an HMD in all specimens. Intraoperative inclination, retroversion, depth, and rotation were measured by the system. A postoperative CT scan was performed. The pre- and postoperative 3D CT scan reconstructions were superimposed to calculate the deviation between planned and postoperative inclination, retroversion, entry point, depth, and rotation of the glenoid component placement. Additionally, a comparison between intra- and postoperative values was calculated. Outliers were defined as >10° inclination, >10° retroversion, >3 mm entry point. RESULTS: The registration algorithm of the scapulae prior to the procedure was correctly completed for all cases. The deviations between planned and postoperative values were 1.0° ± 0.7° for inclination, 1.8° ± 1.3° for retroversion, 1.1 ± 0.4 mm for entry point, 0.7 ± 0.6 mm for depth, and 1.7° ± 1.6° for rotation. The deviation between intra- and postoperative values were 0.9° ± 0.8° for inclination, 1.2° ± 1.1° for retroversion, 0.6 ± 0.5 mm for depth, and 0.3° ± 0.2° for rotation. There were no outliers between planned and postoperative parameters. CONCLUSION: In this study, the use of a navigated AR system through an HMD for RSA led to low deviation between planned and postoperative values and between intra- and postoperative parameters.

Patient-specific instrumentation reduces deviations between planned and postosteotomy humeral retrotorsion and height in shoulder arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) may potentially improve humeral osteotomy in shoulder arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to compare the deviation between planned and postosteotomy humeral inclination, retrotorsion, and height in shoulder arthroplasty, using PSI vs. standard cutting guides (SCG). METHODS: Twenty fresh-frozen cadaveric specimens were allocated to undergo humeral osteotomy using either PSI or SCG, such that the 2 groups have similar age, gender, and side. Preosteotomy computed tomography (CT) scan was performed and used for the 3-dimensional (3D) planning. The osteotomy procedure was performed using a PSI designed for each specimen or an SCG depending on the group. A postosteotomy CT scan was performed. The preosteotomy and postosteotomy 3D CT scan reconstructions were superimposed to calculate the deviation between planned and postosteotomy inclination, retrotorsion, and height. Outliers were defined as cases with 1 or more of the following deviations: >5° inclination, >10° retrotorsion, and >3 mm height. The deviation and outliers in inclination, retrotorsion, and height were compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS: The deviations between planned and postosteotomy parameters were similar among the PSI and SCG groups for inclination (P = .260), whereas they were significantly greater in the SCG group for retrotorsion (P < .001) and height (P = .003). There were 8 outliers in the SCG group, compared with only 1 outlier in the PSI group (P = .005). Most outliers in the SCG group were due to deviation >10° in retrotorsion. CONCLUSION: After 3D planning, PSI had less deviation between planned and postosteotomy humeral retrotorsion and height, relative to SCG.