Templating in shoulder arthroplasty – A comparison of 2D CT to 3D CT planning software: A systematic review

Abstract

Background

Computed tomography (CT) utilizing computer software technology to generate three-dimensional (3D) rendering of the glenoid has become the preferred method for preoperative planning. It remains largely unknown what benefits this software may have to the intraoperative placement of the components and patient outcomes.

Purpose

The purpose of this systematic review is to compare 2D CT to 3D CT planning in total shoulder arthroplasty.

Study design

Systematic review.

Methods

A systematic database search was conducted for relevant studies evaluating the role of 3D CT planning in total shoulder arthroplasty. The primary outcome was component placement variability, and the secondary outcomes were intra- and inter-observer reliability in the context of preoperative planning.

Results

Following title-abstract and full-text screening, six eligible studies were included in the review (n = 237). The variability in glenoid measurements between 3D CT and 2D CT planning ranged from no significant difference to a 5° difference in version and 1.7° difference in inclination (p<0.05). Posterior bone loss was underestimated in 52% of the 2D measured patients relative to 3D CT groups. Irrespective of 2D and 3D planning (39% and 43% of cases respectively), surgeons elected to implant larger components than those templated. There was no literature identified comparing differences in time, cost, functional outcomes, complications, or patient satisfaction.

Conclusion

The paucity of evidence exploring clinical parameters makes it difficult to comment on clinical outcomes using different methods of templating. More studies are required to identify how improved radiographic outcomes translate into improvements that are clinically meaningful to patients.

Keywords

computed tomography glenoid TSA

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Singh

Sperling

Buchbinder

, et al. Surgery for shoulder osteoarthritis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010, pp. CD008089.

Strauss

Roche

Flurin

P-H

, et al. The glenoid in shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2009; 18: 819–833.

Barco

Savvidou

Sperling

, et al. Complications in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. EFORT Open Rev 2016; 1: 72–80.

Gonzalez

J-F

Alami

Baque

, et al. Complications of unconstrained shoulder prostheses. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2011; 20: 666–682.

Jain

Yamaguchi

. The contribution of reverse shoulder arthroplasty to utilization of primary shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2014; 23: 1905–1912.

Higgins J and Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). Cochrane Collab 2011, http://handbook.cochrane.org (accessed 8 November 2019).

Slim

Nini

Forestier

, et al. Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg 2003; 73: 712–716.

Higgins

JPT

Altman

Gøtzsche

, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. Brit Med J 2011; 343: d5928.

Landis

Koch

. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33: 159.

10.

Jacquot

Gauci

M-O

Chaoui

, et al. Proper benefit of a three dimensional pre-operative planning software for glenoid component positioning in total shoulder arthroplasty. Int Orthop 2018; 42: 2897–2906.

11.

Boileau

Cheval

Gauci

M-O

, et al. Automated three-dimensional measurement of glenoid version and inclination in arthritic shoulders. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2018; 100: 57–65.

12.

Hoenecke

Hermida

Flores-Hernandez

, et al. Accuracy of CT-based measurements of glenoid version for total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2010; 19: 166–171.

13.

Saifi

Noticewala

Greiwe

, et al. Reliability of 3-dimensional glenoid component templating and correlation to intraoperative component selection. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 2017; 46: E280–92.

14.

Favre

Seebeck

Thistlethwaite

PAE

, et al. In vitro initial stability of a stemless humeral implant. Clin Biomech 2016; 32: 113–117.

15.

Scalise

Codsi

Bryan

, et al. The influence of three-dimensional computed tomography images of the shoulder in preoperative planning for total shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surgery Am 2008; 90: 2438–2445.

16.

Iannotti

Weiner

Rodriguez

, et al. Three-dimensional imaging and templating improve glenoid implant positioning. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2015; 97: 651–658.

17.

Werner

Hudek

Burkhart

, et al. The influence of three-dimensional planning on decision-making in total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2017; 26: 1477–1483.

18.

Atesok

Schemitsch

. Computer-assisted trauma surgery. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2010; 18: 247–258.

19.

Anderl

Pauzenberger

Kölblinger

, et al. Patient-specific instrumentation improved mechanical alignment, while early clinical outcome was comparable to conventional instrumentation in TKA. Knee Surg, Sport Traumatol Arthrosc 2016; 24: 102–111.

20.

Sassoon

Nam

Nunley

, et al. Systematic review of patient-specific instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty: new but not improved. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2015; 473: 151–158.

21.

Burnett

RSJ

Barrack

. Computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty is currently of no proven clinical benefit: a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2013; 471: 264–276.

22.

Venkatesan

Mahadevan

Ashford

. Computer-assisted navigation in knee arthroplasty: a critical appraisal. J Knee Surg 2013; 26: 357–362.

23.

Sabesan

Callanan

Sharma

. Guidelines for the selection of optimal glenoid augment size for moderate to severe glenohumeral osteoarthritis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2014; 23: 974–981.

24.

Iannotti

Baker

Rodriguez

, et al. Three-dimensional preoperative planning software and a novel information transfer technology improve glenoid component positioning. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2014; 96: e71.

25.

Hoenecke

HRJ

Hermida

Dembitsky

, et al. Optimizing glenoid component position using three-dimensional computed tomography reconstruction. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2008; 17: 637–641.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB

0.01 MB