TY - JOUR
T1 - Short-term functional outcomes of reverse shoulder arthroplasty following three-dimensional planning is similar whether placed with a standard guide or patient-specific instrumentation
AU - Shoulder Arthroplasty Research Committee (ShARC)
AU - Hwang, Simon
AU - Werner, Brian C.
AU - Provencher, Matthew
AU - Horinek, Jeffrey L.
AU - Moroder, Philipp
AU - Ardebol, Javier
AU - Denard, Patrick J.
AU - Bedi, Asheesh
AU - Bercik, Michael
AU - Brolin, Tyler
AU - Burrus, Tyrrell
AU - Cohen, Brian
AU - Creighton, Robert
AU - Davis, Dan
AU - Denard, Patrick
AU - Erickson, Brandon
AU - Gobezie, Reuben
AU - Griffin, Justin
AU - Habermeyer, Peter
AU - Harmsen, Samuel
AU - Kissenberth, Michael
AU - Ladermann, Alexandre
AU - Lederman, Evan
AU - Lenters, Tim
AU - Lichtenberg, Sven
AU - Lutton, David
AU - Mazzocca, Augustus
AU - Menendez, Mariano
AU - Miller, Bruce
AU - Millett, Peter
AU - Parsons, Brad
AU - Provencher, Matt
AU - Raiss, Patric
AU - Romeo, Anthony
AU - Sears, Ben
AU - Shah, Anup
AU - Singh, Anshu
AU - Steinbeck, Jorn
AU - Tokish, John
AU - Werner, Brian
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Board of Trustees
PY - 2023/8
Y1 - 2023/8
N2 - 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: 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: 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: 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.
AB - 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: 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: 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: 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.
KW - Level III
KW - Retrospective Cohort Comparison
KW - Templating
KW - Treatment Study
KW - clinical outcomes
KW - computed tomography
KW - patient-specific instrumentation
KW - planning
KW - reverse total shoulder arthroplasty
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85161052289
U2 - 10.1016/j.jse.2023.02.136
DO - 10.1016/j.jse.2023.02.136
M3 - Article
C2 - 37004738
AN - SCOPUS:85161052289
SN - 1058-2746
VL - 32
SP - 1654
EP - 1661
JO - Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery
JF - Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery
IS - 8
ER -