Short-term functional outcomes of reverse shoulder arthroplasty following three-dimensional planning is similar whether placed with a standard guide or patient-specific instrumentation.
Templating
clinical outcomes
computed tomography
patient-specific instrumentation
planning
reverse total shoulder arthroplasty
Journal
Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery
ISSN: 1532-6500
Titre abrégé: J Shoulder Elbow Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9206499
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2023
Aug 2023
Historique:
received:
15
11
2022
revised:
07
02
2023
accepted:
20
02
2023
medline:
21
7
2023
pubmed:
3
4
2023
entrez:
2
4
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Preoperative assessment of the glenoid and surgical placement of the initial guidewire are important in implant positioning during reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA). Three-dimensional (3D) computed tomography and patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) have improved the placement of the glenoid component, but the impact on clinical outcomes remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to compare short-term clinical outcomes after rTSA based on an intraoperative technique for central guidewire placement in a cohort of patients who had preoperative 3D planning. A retrospective matched analysis was performed from a multicenter prospective cohort of patients who underwent rTSA with preoperative 3D planning and a minimum of 2-year clinical follow-up. Patients were divided into 2 cohorts based on the technique used for glenoid guide pin placement: (1) standard manufacture guide (SG) that was not customized or (2) PSI. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), active range of motion, and strength measures were compared between the groups. The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score was used to assess the minimum clinically important difference, substantial clinical benefit, and patient acceptable symptomatic state. One hundred seventy-eight patients met the study criteria: 56 underwent SGs and 122 underwent PSI. There was no difference in PROs between cohorts. There were no significant differences in the percentage of patients who achieved an American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons minimum clinically important difference, substantial clinical benefit, or patient acceptable symptomatic state. Improvements in internal rotation to the nearest spinal level (P < .001) and at 90° (P = .002) were higher in the SG group, but likely explained by differences in glenoid lateralization used. Improvements in abduction strength (P < .001) and external rotation strength (P = .010) were higher in the PSI group. rTSA performed after preoperative 3D planning leads to similar improvement in PROs regardless of whether an SG or PSI is used intraoperatively for central glenoid wire placement. Greater improvement in postoperative strength was observed with the use of PSI, but the clinical significance of this finding is unclear.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Preoperative assessment of the glenoid and surgical placement of the initial guidewire are important in implant positioning during reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA). Three-dimensional (3D) computed tomography and patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) have improved the placement of the glenoid component, but the impact on clinical outcomes remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to compare short-term clinical outcomes after rTSA based on an intraoperative technique for central guidewire placement in a cohort of patients who had preoperative 3D planning.
METHODS
METHODS
A retrospective matched analysis was performed from a multicenter prospective cohort of patients who underwent rTSA with preoperative 3D planning and a minimum of 2-year clinical follow-up. Patients were divided into 2 cohorts based on the technique used for glenoid guide pin placement: (1) standard manufacture guide (SG) that was not customized or (2) PSI. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), active range of motion, and strength measures were compared between the groups. The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score was used to assess the minimum clinically important difference, substantial clinical benefit, and patient acceptable symptomatic state.
RESULTS
RESULTS
One hundred seventy-eight patients met the study criteria: 56 underwent SGs and 122 underwent PSI. There was no difference in PROs between cohorts. There were no significant differences in the percentage of patients who achieved an American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons minimum clinically important difference, substantial clinical benefit, or patient acceptable symptomatic state. Improvements in internal rotation to the nearest spinal level (P < .001) and at 90° (P = .002) were higher in the SG group, but likely explained by differences in glenoid lateralization used. Improvements in abduction strength (P < .001) and external rotation strength (P = .010) were higher in the PSI group.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
rTSA performed after preoperative 3D planning leads to similar improvement in PROs regardless of whether an SG or PSI is used intraoperatively for central glenoid wire placement. Greater improvement in postoperative strength was observed with the use of PSI, but the clinical significance of this finding is unclear.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37004738
pii: S1058-2746(23)00293-8
doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2023.02.136
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Multicenter Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1654-1661Investigateurs
Asheesh Bedi
(A)
Michael Bercik
(M)
Tyler Brolin
(T)
Tyrrell Burrus
(T)
Brian Cohen
(B)
Robert Creighton
(R)
Dan Davis
(D)
Patrick Denard
(P)
Brandon Erickson
(B)
Reuben Gobezie
(R)
Justin Griffin
(J)
Peter Habermeyer
(P)
Samuel Harmsen
(S)
Michael Kissenberth
(M)
Alexandre Ladermann
(A)
Evan Lederman
(E)
Tim Lenters
(T)
Sven Lichtenberg
(S)
David Lutton
(D)
Augustus Mazzocca
(A)
Mariano Menendez
(M)
Bruce Miller
(B)
Peter Millett
(P)
Philipp Moroder
(P)
Brad Parsons
(B)
Matt Provencher
(M)
Patric Raiss
(P)
Anthony Romeo
(A)
Ben Sears
(B)
Anup Shah
(A)
Anshu Singh
(A)
Jorn Steinbeck
(J)
John Tokish
(J)
Brian Werner
(B)
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Board of Trustees. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.