Abstract
Summary Statement
In this study, excellent positioning of custom-made glenoid components was achieved using patient-specific guides. Achieving the preoperatively planned orientation of the component improved significantly and more screws were located inside the scapular bone compared to implantations without such guide.
Introduction
Today's techniques for total or reverse shoulder arthroplasty are limited when dealing with severe glenoid defects. The available procedures, for instance the use of bone allografts in combination with available standard implants, are technically difficult and tend to give uncertain outcomes (Hill et al. 2001; Elhassan et al. 2008; Sears et al. 2012). A durable fixation between bone and implant with optimal fit and implant positioning needs to be achieved. Custom-made defect-filling glenoid components are a new treatment option for severe glenoid defects. Despite that the patient-specific implants are uniquely designed to fit the patient's bone, it can be difficult to achieve the preoperatively planned position of the component, resulting in less optimal screw fixation. We hypothesised that the use of a patient-specific guide would improve implant and screw positioning. The aim of this study was to evaluate the added value of a newly developed patient-specific guide for implant and screw positioning, by comparing glenoid implantations with and without such guide.
Patients & Methods
Large glenoid defects, representative for the defects encountered in clinical practice, were created in ten cadaveric shoulders. A CT scan of each cadaver was taken to evaluate the defects and to generate three-dimensional models of the scapular bones. Based on these models, custom glenoid components were designed. Furthermore, a newly developed custom guide was designed for five randomly selected shoulders. New CT scans were taken after implantation to generate 3D models of the bone and the implanted component and screws. This enabled to compare the experimentally achieved and preoperatively planned reconstruction. The location and orientation of the glenoid component and screw positioning were determined and differences with the optimal preoperative planning were calculated.
Results
An excellent component positioning (difference in location: 1.4±0, 7mm; difference in orientation: 2, 5±1, 2°) was achieved when using the guide compared to implantations without guidance (respectively 1, 7±0, 5mm; 5, 1±2, 3°). The guide improved component orientation significantly (P<0.1). After using the guide, all screws were positioned inside the scapular bone whereas 25% of the screws placed without guidance were positioned outside the scapular bone.
Discussion/Conclusion
In this study, excellent positioning of custom-made glenoid components was achieved using patient-specific guides. Achieving the preoperatively planned orientation of the component improved significantly and more screws were located inside the scapular bone compared to implantations without such guide.
