The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of the integration of technological advancements in orthopedic shoulder surgery. Recent technological advancements in orthopedic shoulder surgery include predictive analytics, computer-navigated instrumentation for operative planning, extended reality, and robotics. Separately, these advancements provide distinct methodological attempts to improve surgical experiences and outcomes. Together, these technologies can provide orthopedic surgeons with the tools and capabilities to improve patient care and communication in shoulder arthroplasty. From artificial intelligence-generated predictive analytics to extended reality and robotics, technical innovations may lead to improvements in patient education, surgical accuracy, interdisciplinary communication, and outcomes. A comprehensive narrative review was conducted to explore the technological advancements of orthopedic shoulder arthroplasty. Our findings emphasized the impact of these advancements, exemplified by early enhancements in efficacy and safety. However, certain challenges remain, such as a lack of reproducibly improved outcomes and cost considerations. While the reviewed studies indicate hope for improving shoulder arthroplasty, the true cost-effectiveness and applicability remains to be determined, indicating the need for further research.
KungTHCheathamMMedenillaA, et al.Performance of ChatGPT on USMLE: potential for AI-assisted medical education using large language models. PLOS Digit Health2023; 2: e0000198.
2.
GuptaPHaeberleHSZimmerZR, et al. Artificial intelligence-based applications in shoulder surgery leaves much to be desired: a systematic review. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2023; 3: 189–200.
3.
KumarVSchochBSAllenC, et al. Using machine learning to predict internal rotation after anatomic and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2022; 31: e234–e245.
4.
RauckRCRuzbarskyJJSwarupI, et al.Predictors of patient satisfaction after reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2020; 29: e67–e74.
5.
KumarVAllenCOvermanS, et. al. Development of a predictive model for a machine learning-derived shoulder arthroplasty clinical outcome score. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2022; 32: 226–237.
6.
KarnutaJMChurchillJLHaeberleHS, et al. The value of artificial neural networks for predicting length of stay, discharge disposition, and inpatient costs after anatomic and reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2020; 29: 2385–2394.
7.
RaissPWalchG. WittmannT, et al. Is preoperative planning effective for intraoperative glenoid implant size and type selection during anatomic and reverse shoulder arthroplasty?J Shoulder Elbow Surg2020; 29: 2123–2127.
8.
ParsonsMGreeneAPolakovicS, et al.Assessment of surgeon variability in preoperative planning of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a quantitative comparison of 49 cases planned by 9 surgeons. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2020; 29: 2080–2088.
9.
ZhaoQFengQZhangJ, et al.Glenoid segmentation from computed tomography scans based on a 2-stage deep learning model for glenoid bone loss evaluation. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2023; 32: e624–e635.
10.
HolzgrefeREHaoKAPantherEJ, et al. Early clinical outcomes following navigation-assisted baseplate fixation in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a matched cohort study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2023; 32: 302–309.
11.
BoileauP. Complications and revision of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res2016; 102: S33–S43.
12.
NashikkarPSScholesCJHaberMD. Role of intraoperative navigation in the fixation of the glenoid component in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a clinical case-control study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2019; 28: 1685–1691.
13.
NashikkarPSScholesCJHaberMD. Computer navigation re-creates planned glenoid placement and reduces correction variability in total shoulder arthroplasty: an in vivo case-control study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2019; 28: e398–e409.
14.
JonesRBGreeneATPolakovicS, et al. Accuracy and precision of placement of the glenoid baseplate in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty using a novel computer-assisted navigation system combined with preoperative planning: a controlled cadaveric study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2020; 30: 73–82.
15.
FurmanAAHsuWK. Augmented reality (AR) in orthopedics: current applications and future directions. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med2021; 14: 397–405.
16.
SadigaleOSchneiderKTahaME. Mixed reality and augmented reality in shoulder arthroplasty: a literature review. Eur Soc Med Med Res Arch2022; 10.
17.
RojasJTJostBZipetoC, et al. 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. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2023; 32: e587–e596.
18.
Sanchez-SoteloJBerhouetJChaouiJ, et al. Validation of mixed-reality surgical navigation for glenoid axis pin placement in shoulder arthroplasty using a cadaveric model. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2024; 33: 1177–1184.
19.
InnocentiBBoriE. Robotics in orthopaedic surgery: why, what and how?Arch Orthop Trauma Surg2021; 141: 2035–2042.
20.
JacofskyDJAllenM. Robotics in arthroplasty: a comprehensive review. J Arthroplasty2016; 31: 2353–2363.
BanchettiRDariSRicciariniME, et al.Comparison of conventional versus robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty using the MAKO system: an Italian retrospective study. J Health Soc Sci2018; 3: 37–48.
23.
BataillerCFernandezASwanJ, et al. MAKO CT-based robotic arm-assisted system is a reliable procedure for total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc2021; 29: 3585–3598.
24.
GriffinJDavisEParsonsH, et al.Robotic arthroplasty clinical and cost effectiveness randomised controlled trial (RACER-knee): a study protocol. BMJ Open2023; 13: e068255.
ShinCCrovettiCHuoE, et al.Unsatisfactory accuracy of recent robotic assisting system ROSA for total knee arthroplasty. J Exp Orthop2022; 9: 82.
27.
Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. Zimmer Biomet Receives FDA Clearance for ROSA® Shoulder System - the World’s First Robotic Assistant for Shoulder Replacement Surgery. Zimmer Biomet, Warsaw, Indiana USA, 2024. https://investor.zimmerbiomet.com (accessed 25 February 2024).
28.
Twomey-KozakJHurleyELevinJ, et al.Technological innovations in shoulder replacement: current concepts and the future of robotics in total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2023; 32: 2161–2171.
29.
SmithCDAthwalGSFerreiraLM. Early experience with force-space navigated robotics for glenoid implantation during total shoulder arthroplasty. Ann Robot Automation2021; 5: 001–010.
30.
DarwoodAHurstSAVillatteG, et al. Novel robotic technology for the rapid intraoperative manufacture of patient-specific instrumentation allowing for improved glenoid component accuracy in shoulder arthroplasty: a cadaveric study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2022; 31: 561–570.
31.
PorterME. What is value in healthcare?New Engl J Med2010; 363: 2477–2481.
32.
BurnhamJMMetaFLizzioV, et al. Technology assessment and cost-effectiveness in orthopedics: how to measure outcomes and deliver value in a constantly changing healthcare environment. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med2017; 10: 233–239.
33.
MoschettiWEKonopkaJFRubashHE, et al. Can robot-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty be cost-effective? A Markov decision analysis. J Arthroplasty2016; 31: 759–765.
