Accuracy of 3-Dimensional Planning, Implant Templating, and Patient-Specific Instrumentation in Anatomic Total Shoulder Arthroplasty

Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - Tập 101 Số 5 - Trang 446-457 - 2019
Joseph P. Iannotti1, Kyle Walker1, Eric Rodriguez1, Thomas E. Patterson1, Bong Jae Jun1, Eric T. Ricchetti1
1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio

Tóm tắt

Background: Use of 3-dimensional (3D) computed tomography (CT) preoperative planning and patient-specific instrumentation has been demonstrated to improve the accuracy of glenoid implant placement in total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of glenoid implant placement in primary TSA among different types of instrumentation used with the 3D CT preoperative planning. Methods: One hundred and seventy-three patients with end-stage glenohumeral arthritis were enrolled in 3 prospective studies evaluating patient-specific instrumentation and 3D preoperative planning. All patients underwent preoperative 3D CT planning to determine optimal glenoid component and guide pin position based on surgeon preference. Patients were placed into 1 of 5 instrument groups used for intraoperative guide pin placement: (1) standard instrumentation, (2) standard instrumentation combined with use of a 3D glenoid bone model containing the guide pin, (3) use of the 3D glenoid bone model combined with single-use patient-specific instrumentation, (4) use of the 3D glenoid bone model combined with reusable patient-specific instrumentation, and (5) use of reusable patient-specific instrumentation with an adjustable, reusable base. Postoperatively, all patients underwent 3D CT to compare actual versus planned glenoid component position. Deviation from the plan (in terms of orientation and location) was compared across groups on the basis of absolute differences and outlier analysis. Univariable and multivariable comparisons were performed. As the initial analyses showed no significant differences in preoperative factors or in deviation from the plan between Groups 1 and 2 or between Groups 4 and 5 across studies, the final analysis was across 3 major treatment groups: standard instrumentation (Groups 1 and 2), single-use patient-specific instrumentation (Group 3), and reusable patient-specific instrumentation (Groups 4 and 5). Results: In nearly all comparisons, there were no significant differences in the deviation from the plan (absolute differences or outlier frequency) for glenoid implant orientation or location across the 3 major treatment groups. Conclusions: This study did not demonstrate that any type of patient-specific instrumentation resulted in consistent differences in accuracy of glenoid implant placement in primary TSA with 3D CT preoperative planning. Surgeons have multiple patient-specific instrumentation options available for improving accuracy of glenoid implant placement when compared with 2D imaging without patient-specific instrumentation. Level of Evidence Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Denard, 2013, Current concepts in the surgical management of primary glenohumeral arthritis with a biconcave glenoid, J Shoulder Elbow Surg., 22, 1589, 10.1016/j.jse.2013.06.017

Kany, 2013, How to deal with glenoid type B2 or C? How to prevent mistakes in implantation of glenoid component?, Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol., 23, 379, 10.1007/s00590-012-1118-5

Iannotti, 2012, Effect of glenoid deformity on glenoid component placement in primary shoulder arthroplasty, J Shoulder Elbow Surg., 21, 48, 10.1016/j.jse.2011.02.011

Mizuno, 2013, Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis in patients with a biconcave glenoid, J Bone Joint Surg Am., 95, 1297, 10.2106/JBJS.L.00820

Knowles, 2015, Augmented glenoid component designs for type B2 erosions: a computational comparison by volume of bone removal and quality of remaining bone, J Shoulder Elbow Surg., 24, 1218, 10.1016/j.jse.2014.12.018

Walch, 2012, Patterns of loosening of polyethylene keeled glenoid components after shoulder arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis: results of a multicenter study with more than five years of follow-up, J Bone Joint Surg Am., 94, 145, 10.2106/JBJS.J.00699

Verborgt, 2011, Accuracy of placement of the glenoid component in reversed shoulder arthroplasty with and without navigation, J Shoulder Elbow Surg., 20, 21, 10.1016/j.jse.2010.07.014

Nguyen, 2009, Improved accuracy of computer assisted glenoid implantation in total shoulder arthroplasty: an in-vitro randomized controlled trial, J Shoulder Elbow Surg., 18, 907, 10.1016/j.jse.2009.02.022

Hendel, 2012, Comparison of patient-specific instruments with standard surgical instruments in determining glenoid component position: a randomized prospective clinical trial, J Bone Joint Surg Am., 94, 2167, 10.2106/JBJS.K.01209

Walch, 2015, Three-dimensional planning and use of patient-specific guides improve glenoid component position: an in vitro study, J Shoulder Elbow Surg., 24, 302, 10.1016/j.jse.2014.05.029

Ganapathi, 2011, Predicting normal glenoid version from the pathologic scapula: a comparison of 4 methods in 2- and 3-dimensional models, J Shoulder Elbow Surg., 20, 234, 10.1016/j.jse.2010.05.024

Walch, 2012, Results of anatomic nonconstrained prosthesis in primary osteoarthritis with biconcave glenoid, J Shoulder Elbow Surg., 21, 1526, 10.1016/j.jse.2011.11.030

Farron, 2006, Risks of loosening of a prosthetic glenoid implanted in retroversion, J Shoulder Elbow Surg., 15, 521, 10.1016/j.jse.2005.10.003

Gomes, 2017, Patient-specific instrumentation for total shoulder arthroplasty, EFORT Open Rev., 1, 177, 10.1302/2058-5241.1.000033

Dallalana, 2016, Accuracy of patient-specific instrumentation in anatomic and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty, Int J Shoulder Surg., 10, 59, 10.4103/0973-6042.180717

Iannotti, 2015, Three-dimensional imaging and templating improve glenoid implant positioning, J Bone Joint Surg Am., 97, 651, 10.2106/JBJS.N.00493

Scalise, 2008, The three-dimensional glenoid vault model can estimate normal glenoid version in osteoarthritis, J Shoulder Elbow Surg., 17, 487, 10.1016/j.jse.2007.09.006

Iannotti, 2017, Quantitative measurement of osseous pathology in advanced glenohumeral osteoarthritis, J Bone Joint Surg Am., 99, 1460, 10.2106/JBJS.16.00869

Bercik, 2016, A modification to the Walch classification of the glenoid in primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis using three-dimensional imaging, J Shoulder Elbow Surg., 25, 1601, 10.1016/j.jse.2016.03.010

Amini, 2017, Three-dimensional templating and use of standard instrumentation in primary anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty, JBJS Essent Surg Tech., 7, e28, 10.2106/JBJS.ST.17.00009

Throckmorton, 2015, Patient-specific targeting guides compared with traditional instrumentation for glenoid component placement in shoulder arthroplasty: a multi-surgeon study in 70 arthritic cadaver specimens, J Shoulder Elbow Surg., 24, 965, 10.1016/j.jse.2014.10.013

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery

Tập 101 Số 5

446-457

Thông tin tác giả