INTRODUCTION. 3D preoperative planning software for anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (ATSA) provides surgeons with increased ability to visualize complex joint relationships and deformities. Interestingly, the advent of such software has seemed to create less of a consensus on the optimal way to plan an ATSA rather than more. In this study, a survey of shoulder specialists from the American Shoulder and Elbow Society (ASES) was conducted to examine thought patterns in current ATSA implant selection and placement. METHODS. 172 ASES members completed an 18-question survey on their thought process for how they select and place an ATSA glenoid implant. Data was collected using a custom online Survey Monkey survey. Surgeon answers were split into two cohorts based on number of arthroplasties performed per year: between 0–75 was considered low volume (LV), and between 75–200+ was considered high volume (HV). Data was analyzed for each cohort to examine differences in thought patterns, implant selection, and implant placement. RESULTS. 70 surgeons were grouped into the LV cohort, and 102 surgeons were grouped into the HV cohort. 46.1% of surgeons in the HV cohort reported using a preoperative planning software for the majority of cases vs. 41.4% in the LV cohort, 48% of surgeons in the HV cohort reported seldom use vs. 24.3% in the LV cohort, and 5.9% of surgeons in the HV cohort reported no use vs. 34.3% in the LV cohort (Figure 1). When questioned on what percentage of ATSA cases do surgeons use augmented glenoid implants, 20.6% in the HV cohort responded never using augments vs. 30% in the LV cohort, 39.2% responded using augments <15% of the time in the HV cohort vs. 34.3% in the LV cohort, 26.5% responded using augments between 15–45% of the time in the HV cohort vs. 28.6% in the LV cohort, and 13.7% responded using augments >45% of the time in the HV cohort vs. 7.2% in the LV cohort (Figure 2). When asked what the maximum allowable residual retroversion for an ATSA glenoid implant is, surgeons answered 0–5° 6.9% of the time in the HV cohort vs. 4.3% in the LV cohort, 6–9° 35.6% of the time in the HV cohort vs. 50% in the LV cohort, 10–12° 34.7% of the time in the HV cohort vs. 32.9% in the LV cohort, 13–15° 10.9% of the time in the HV cohort vs. 8.6% in the LV cohort, and lastly >16° 11.9% of the time in the HV cohort vs. 4.3% in the LV cohort (Figure 3). CONCLUSION. Research suggests ATSA glenoid implants may be less forgiving of malalignment than reverse shoulder glenoid implants, but the contrasting survey results in this study reveal that a consensus in optimal placement has yet to be reached. Interestingly, even though HV use more augmented glenoid components than LV surgeons, HV surgeons are more accepting of residual glenoid component retroversion than LV surgeons. Despite these differences, there is no way to prove the optimal implant selection and placement without long-term clinical outcomes. For any figures or tables, please contact the authors directly

Background:. Glenoid component loosening remains as an unsolved clinical problem in total shoulder arthroplasty. Current clinical assessment relies on subjective quantification using a two-dimensional plane X-ray image with arbitrarily defined criteria. There is a need to develop a readily usable clinical tool to accurately and reliably quantify the glenoid component motion over time after surgery. A high-resolution clinical CT has the potential to quantify the glenoid motion, but is challenged by metal artifact from the prosthetic humeral components. The objective of this study is to demonstrate the feasibility of using a clinical CT reconstruction to quantify the glenoid implant motion with the aid of tantalum markers. Methods:. Three spherical tantalum markers of 1.0 mm in diameter were inserted into three peripheral pegs of an all polyethylene glenoid component. The glenoid component was implanted in a sawbone scapula. To determine the effect of metal artifact on quantification of glenoid implant motion, two sawbone humerii were used: one without the prosthetic humeral components and the other with the prosthetic humeral head and stem. Three custom-made translucent spacers with the uniform thickness were placed between the glenoid component and the scapula to produce a gradual translation of the glenoid component from 1 mm to 3 mm. Before and after inserting each spacer, the surface of the glenoid component was digitized by a MicroScribe. The surface points were used to fit a sphere and the corresponding center of the sphere was calculated. The actual translation of the glenoid component was measured as the three-dimensional (3D) distance between the center of the sphere before and after insertion of each spacer. Then, the shoulder model was scanned by a clinical CT with and without the spacers for both humerii conditions. Velcro straps were used to secure the humerus to the glenoid component between the trials. All CT scans were reconstructed in VolNinja software to superimpose the scapula positions (Figure 1). The three tantalum markers were visualized and the center coordinates of the markers were used to measure the 3D distance before and after insertion of each spacer. The accuracy was defined by the difference between the averaged 3D distance measured by CT reconstruction and that measured by the MicroScribe. The standard deviation of the 3D distance measured by each tantalum marker was calculated to evaluate the reliability of the tantalum marker visualization. Results:. Without metal artifact, the accuracy and reliability of quantifying glenoid implant motion using a clinical CT were 0.4 mm and 0.2 mm, respectively (Figure 2). With the presence of metal artifact, the accuracy and reliability were 0.5 mm and 0.4 mm, respectively. The largest difference in quantifying the glenoid component motion with and without the metal artifact was only 0.12 mm. Conclusion:. The current study demonstrated the feasibility of using a clinical CT to quantify glenoid implant motion. With the aid of tantalum markers, a clinical CT can be readily used to quantify the glenoid implant motion accurately and reliably even with the presence of metal artifact from the humeral components

INTRODUCTION. 3D preoperative planning software for anatomic and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (ATSA and RTSA) provides additional insight for surgeons regarding implant selection and placement. Interestingly, the advent of such software has brought previously unconsidered questions to light on the optimal way to plan a case. In this study, a survey of shoulder specialists from the American Shoulder and Elbow Society (ASES) was conducted to examine thought patterns in current glenoid implant selection and placement. METHODS. 172 ASES members completed an 18-question survey on their thought process for how they select and place a glenoid implant for both ATSA and RTSA procedures. Data was collected using a custom online Survey Monkey survey. Surgeon answers were split into three cohorts based on their responses to usage of 3D preoperative planning software: high users, seldom users, and non-users. Data was analyzed for each cohort to examine differences in thought patterns, implant selection, and implant placement. RESULTS. 76 surgeons were grouped into the high user cohort, 66 into the seldom user cohort, and 30 into the non-user cohort. 61.9% of high users and 74.1% of seldom users performed >75 shoulder arthroplasties per year, whereas only 19.9% of non-users performed >75 arthroplasties per year (Figure 1). When questioned on glenoid implant type selection (augmented vs. non-augmented components), 80.3% of high users reported augment usage for both ATSA and RTSA, with using augments >45% of the time in 18.4% of ATSA cases and in 22.3% of RTSA cases. For seldom users, 80.3% reported augment usage in ATSA cases, and 70.3% in RTSA cases. Seldom users reported augment usage >45% of the time in 4.5% of ATSA cases and in 1.6% of RTSA cases. For non-preoperative planning users, 53.3% reported using augments in ATSA cases, and 48.3% for RTSA cases. Non-users used augmented glenoid components >45% of the time in 6.6% of ATSA cases and in 6.8% of RTSA cases. For resultant implant superior inclination in RTSA, 40.8% of high users aim for 0° of inclination, followed by 31.8% for seldom users and 16.7% of non-users (Figure 2). CONCLUSION. The results of this study show that 3D preoperative planning software has an influence on the decision making process when planning a shoulder arthroplasty. High volume shoulder arthroplasty surgeons report higher preoperative planning software usage than low volume surgeons, suggesting the utility of such software. Augmented glenoid component usage for both ATSA and RTSA is also higher for surgeons that use preoperative planning software, which either suggests the utility of augmented glenoid components, or that the use of such software creates the perceived need for augmented glenoid components. Lastly, surgeons who preoperatively plan tend to orient their glenoid components differently, which could suggest either a better understanding of the anatomy through the use of the software, or an influence on mindset regarding implant orientation resulting from software usage. This highlights an area for future work that could correlate clinical outcome data to implant selection and placement to prove what is the optimal plan for a given patient. For any figures or tables, please contact the authors directly

INTRODUCTION. The advent of CT based 3D preoperative planning software for reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) provides surgeons with more data than ever before to prepare for a case. Interestingly, as the usage of such software has increased, further questions have appeared over the optimal way to plan and place a glenoid implant for RTSA. In this study, a survey of shoulder specialists from the American Shoulder and Elbow Society (ASES) was conducted to examine thought patterns in current RTSA implant selection and placement. METHODS. 172 ASES members completed an 18-question survey on their thought process for how they select and place a RTSA glenoid implant. Data was collected using a custom online Survey Monkey survey. Surgeon answers were split into two cohorts based on number of arthroplasties performed per year: between 0–75 was considered low volume (LV), and between 75–200+ was considered high volume (HV). Data was analyzed for each cohort to examine differences in thought patterns, implant selection, and implant placement. RESULTS. 70 surgeons were grouped into the LV cohort, and 102 surgeons were grouped into the HV cohort. 46.1% of surgeons in the HV cohort reported using a preoperative planning software for the majority of cases, 48% reported seldom use, and 5.9% reported no use. In the LV cohort, 41.4% reported use for the majority of cases, 24.3% reported seldom use, and 34.3% reported no use (Figure 1). When questioned on what percentage of RTSA cases do surgeons use augmented glenoid implants, 26.7% in the HV cohort responded never using augments vs. 32.4% in the LV cohort, 32.7% responded using augments <15% of the time in the HV cohort vs. 30.9% in the LV cohort, 26.7% responded using augments between 15–45% of the time in the HV cohort vs. 27.9% in the LV cohort, and 13.8% responded using augments >45% of the time in the HV cohort vs. 8.8% in the LV cohort (Figure 2). When asked what the maximum allowable superior inclination for a RTSA glenoid implant is, surgeons answered 10° 20.6% of the time in the HV cohort vs. 30% in the LV cohort, 5° 18.6% of the time in the HV cohort vs. 25.7% in the LV cohort, 0° 38.2% of the time in the HV cohort vs. 25.7% in the LV cohort, and no fixed degree 22.5% of the time in the HV cohort vs. 18.6% in the LV cohort (Figure 3). CONCLUSION. The results of this study show that even within a group of highly trained surgeons, there are widely varying opinions on how to plan the optimal RTSA case. Variation between high and low volume surgeons reveals even greater differences, suggesting that experience affects thought pattern. Despite these differences, there is no way to prove the optimal implant selection and placement without consistent data collection and long-term clinical outcomes. Machine learning on large preoperative planning databases combined with clinical outcomes data may provide further clarity on optimal implant placement and selection. For any figures or tables, please contact the authors directly

Background and Motivation. Accurate placement of glenoid components in reverse and total shoulder arthroplasty has been shown to reduce the risk of implant failure (1, 2, 6). Surgical techniques and literature describe methods to determine favorable positions for implant placement (3, 4, 5) but achieving that position surgically remains a challenge. Placement of glenoid components is faced with the challenge of variable glenoid morphology on which conventional instrumentation does not always provide a reliable reference (6, 7, 8). Limited surgical exposure is another challenge since many anatomic landmarks are not visible to the surgeon to use as spacial reference. Anatomic landmarks and angles can be more reliabily selected on CT scans with 3-dimentional reconstruction (9,10) yet few methods allow for the reproducible translation of these plans to surgery. Navigation has produced better accuracy and lower variability than conventional instrumentation (11), yet its regular usage remains limited, especially in the shoulder. Methods. A patient specific planning and guiding system has been developed for glenoid implant placement of total and reverse shoulder arthoplasty procedures. This method allows for preoperative planning on a patient specific virtual 3D model of the scapula derived from CT images (Figure 1), and guided placement of a pin which which serves as the central axis for determining proper implant position. An initial implant position was presented on the virtual model based on the methods described by the surgical technique of the corresponding procedure. These plans were either approved or adapted to a desired position within the planning software by the surgeons. Using this planned position as input, patient specific surgical guides were created which fit onto the exposed anatomy and guide the drilling of the pin (Figure 1). This method was tested on 14 cadavers, with attention directed to translation of the starting point from the original plan, the ability to reproduce the intended degree of inferior tilt, and the ability to reproduce the glenoid version angle. Results. The ability to reproduce the surgical plan was found to be highly accurate for the 14 cadaveric specimens. Translational accuracy amongst the 14 cadavers was found to be 1.01 ± 0.53 mm, tilt was 0.46 ± 0.53 degrees, and the accuracy of version was found to be 1.16 degrees ± 1.15 degrees. Conclusion. Surgical planning on patient specific virtual bone models and the corresponding surface matched drilling guides for glenoid implant positiong provide surgeons with an accurate method to achieve the desired surgical implant position. The measured accuracy compares favorably to both conventional and navigated techniques

Common post-operative problems in shoulder arthroplasty such as glenoid loosening and joint instability can be reduced by improvements in glenoid design shape, material choice and fixation method [1]. Innovation in shoulder replacement is usually carried out by introducing incremental changes to functioning implants [2], possibly overlooking other successful design combinations. We propose an automated framework for parametric analysis of implant design in order to efficiently assess different possible glenoid configurations. Parametric variations of reference geometries of a glenoid implant were automatically generated in SolidWorks. The different implants were aligned and implanted with repeatability using Rhino. The glenoid-bone models were meshed in Abaqus, and boundary conditions and loading applied via a custom-made Python script. Finally, another MATLAB script integrated and automated the different steps, extracted and analysed the results. This study compared the influence of reference shape (keel vs. 2-pegged) and material on the von Mises stresses and tensile and compressive strains of glenoid components with bearing surface thickness and fixation feature width of 3, 4, 5 or 6 mm. A total of 96 different glenoid geometries were implanted into a bone cube (E = 300 MPa, ν = 0.3). Fixed boundary conditions were applied at the distal surface of the cube and a contact force of 1000 N was distributed between the central nodes on the bearing surface. The implants were assigned UHMWPE (E = 1 GPa, ν = 0.46), Vitamin E PE (E = 800 MPa, ν = 0.46), CFR-PEEK (E = 18 GPa, ν = 0.41) or PCU (E = 2 GPa, ν = 0.38) material properties and the bone-implant surface was tied (Figure 1). The von Mises stresses, compressive and tensile strains for the different models were extracted. The influence of design parameters in the mechanical environment of the implant could be assessed. In this particular example, the 95. th. percentile values of the tensile and compressive strains induced by modifications in reference shape could be evaluated for all the different geometries simultaneously in form of radar plots. 2-pegged geometries (green) consistently produced lower tensile and compressive strains than the keeled (blue) configurations (Figure 2). Vitamin E PE and PCU glenoids also produced lower maximum von Mises stresses values than CFR-PEEK and UHMWPE designs (Figure 3). The developed method allows for simple, direct, rapid and repeatable comparison of different design features, material choices or fixation methods by analysing how they influence the mechanical environment of the bone surrounding the implant. Such tool can provide invaluable insight in implant design optimisation by screening through multiple potential design modifications at an early design evaluation stage and highlighting the best performing combinations. Future work will introduce physiological bone geometries and loading, a wider variety of reference geometries and fixation features, and look at bone/interface strength and osteointegration predictions

INTRODUCTION. Variability in placement of total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) glenoid implants has led to the increased use of 3D CT preoperative planning software. Computer assisted surgery (CAS) offers the potential of improved accuracy in TSA while following a preoperative plan, as well as the flexibility for intraoperative adjustment during the procedure. This study compares the accuracy of implantation of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) glenoid implants using a CAS TSA system verses traditional non-navigated techniques in 30 cadaveric shoulders relative to a preoperative plan from 3D CT software. METHODS. High resolution 1mm slice thickness CT scans were obtained on 30 cadaveric shoulders from 15 matched pair specimens. Each scan was segmented and the digital models were incorporated into a preoperative planning software. Five fellowship trained orthopedic shoulder specialists used this software to virtually place a rTSA glenoid implant as they deemed best fit in six cadavers each. The specimens were randomized with respect to side and split into a cohort utilizing the CAS system and a cohort utilizing conventional instrumentation, for a total of three shoulders per cohort per surgeon. A BaSO. 4. PEEK surrogate implant identical in geometry to the metal implant used in the preoperative plan was used in every specimen, to maintain high CT resolution while minimizing CT artifact. The surgeons were instructed to implant the rTSA implants as close to their preoperative plans as possible for both cohorts. In the CAS cohort, each surgeon used the system to register the native cadaveric bones to each respective CT, perform the TSA procedure, and implant the surrogate rTSA implant. The surgeons then performed the TSA procedure on the opposing side of the matched pair using conventional instrumentation. Postoperatively, CT scans were repeated on each specimen and segmented to extract the digital models. The pre- and postoperative scapulae models were aligned using a best fit match algorithm, and variance between the virtual planned position of the implant and the executed surgical position of the implant was calculated [Fig 1]. RESULTS. For version and inclination, implants in the CAS cohort showed significantly less deviation from preoperative plan than those in the non-navigated cohort (Version: 1.9 ± 1.9° vs 5.9 ± 3.5°; p < .001; Inclination: 2.4 ± 2.5° vs 6.3 ± 6.2°; p = .031). No significant difference was noted between the two cohorts regarding deviation from the preoperative plan in anterior-posterior and superior-inferior positioning on the glenoid face (1.5 ± 1.0mm CAS cohort, 2.4 ± 1.3mm non- navigated cohort; p = .055). No significant difference was found for deviation from preoperative plan for reaming depth (1.1. ± 0.7mm CAS cohort, 1.3 ± 0.9mm non-navigated cohort; p =.397). CONCLUSION. The results of this study demonstrate that this CAS navigation system facilitates a surgeon's ability to more accurately reproduce their intended glenoid implant version and inclination (with respect to their preoperative plan), compared to conventional non-navigated techniques. Future work will determine if more accurate and precise implant placement is associated with improved clinical outcomes. For any figures or tables, please contact the authors directly

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty has a high complication rate related to glenoid implant instability and screw loosening. Better radiographic post-operative evaluation may help in understanding complications causes. Medical radiographic imaging is the conventional technique for post-operative component placement analysis. Studies suggest that volumetric CT is better than use of CT slices or conventional radiographs. Currently, post-operative CT use is limited by metal-artifacts in images. This study evaluated inter-observer reliability of pre-operative and post-operative CT images registration to conventional approaches using radiographs and CT slices in measuring reverse shoulder arthroplasty glenoid implant and screw percentage in bone. Pre-operative and post-operative CT scans, and post-operative radiographs were obtained from six patients that had reverse shoulder arthroplasty. CT scans images were imported into a medical imaging processing software and each scapula, glenoid implant and inferior screw were reconstructed as 3D models. Post-operative 3D models were imported into the pre-operative reference frame and matched to the pre-operative scapula model using a paired-point and a surface registration. Measurements on registered CT models were done in reference to the pre-operative scapula model coordinate frame defined by a computer-assisted designed triad positioned in respect to the center of the glenoid fossa and trigonum scapulae (medial-lateral, z axis) and superior and inferior glenoid tubercle (superior-inferior, y axis). The orthogonal triad third axis defined the anterior-posterior axis (x axis). A duplicate triad was positioned along the central axis of the glenoid implant model. Using a virtual protractor, the glenoid implant inclination was measured from its central axis and the scapula transverse plane (x - z axes) and version from the coronal plane (y - z axes). Inferior screw percentage in bone was measured from a Boolean intersection operation between the pre-operative scapula model and the inferior screw model. For CT slices and radiographic measurements, a first 90-degree Cobb angle, from medical records software, was positioned from the trigonum scapulae to the centre of the central peg. Using the 90-degree line as reference, a second Cobb angle was drawn from the most superior to the most inferior point of the glenoid implant for inclination and from of the most anterior to the most posterior point for version. Version can only be measured using CT slices. Screw percentage in bone was calculated from screw length measures collected with a distance-measuring tool from the software. For testing the inter-observer reliability of the three methods, measures taken by three qualified observers were analysed using an intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) method. The 3D registration method showed excellent reliability (ICC > 0.75) in glenoid implant inclination (0.97), version (0.98) and screw volume in bone (0.99). Conventional methods showed poor reliability (ICC < 0.4); CT-slice inclination (0.02), version (0.07), percentage of screw in bone (0.02) and for radiographic inclination (0.05) and percentage screw in bone (0.05). This CT registration of post-operative to pre-operative novel method for quantitatively assessing reverse shoulder arthroplasty glenoid implant positioning and screw percentage in bone, showed excellent inter-observer reliability compared to conventional 2D approaches. It overcomes metal-artifact limitations of post-operative CT evaluation

Patients receiving reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) often have osseous erosions because of glenohumeral arthritis, leading to increased surgical complexity. Glenoid implant fixation is a primary predictor of the success of RTSA and affects micromotion at the bone-implant interface. Augmented implants which incorporate specific geometry to address superior erosion are currently available, but the clinical outcomes of these implants are still considered short-term. The objective of this study was to investigate micromotion at the glenoid-baseplate interface for a standard, 3 mm and 6 mm lateralized baseplates, half-wedge, and full-wedge baseplates. It was hypothesized that the mechanism of load distribution from the baseplate to the glenoid will differ between implants, and these varying mechanisms will affect overall baseplate micromotion. Clinical CT scans of seven shoulders (mean age 69 years, 10°-19° glenoid inclinations) that were classified as having E2-type glenoid erosions were used to generate 3D scapula models using MIMICS image processing software (Materialise, Belgium) with a 0.75 mm mesh size. Each scapula was then repeatedly virtually reconstructed with the five implant types (standard,3mm,6mm lateralized, and half/full wedge; Fig.1) positioned in neutral version and inclination with full backside contact. The reconstructed scapulae were then imported into ABAQUS (SIMULIA, U.S.) finite element software and loads were applied simulating 15°,30°,45°,60°,75°, and 90° of abduction based on published instrumented in-vivo implant data. The micromotion normal and tangential to the bone surface, and effective load transfer area were recorded for each implant and abduction angle. A repeated measures ANOVA was used to perform statistical analysis. Maximum normal micromotion was found to be significantly less when using the standard baseplate (5±4 μm), as opposed to the full-wedge (16±7 μm, p=0.004), 3 mm lateralized (10±6 μm, p=0.017), and 6 mm lateralized (16±8 μm, p=0.007) baseplates (Fig.2). The half-wedge baseplate (11±7 μm) also produced significantly less micromotion than the full-wedge (p=0.003), and the 3 mm lateralized produced less micromotion than the full wedge (p=0.026) and 6 mm lateralized (p=0.003). Similarly, maximum tangential micromotion was found to be significantly less when using the standard baseplate (7±4 μm), as opposed to the half-wedge (12±5 μm, p=0.014), 3 mm lateralized (10±5 μm, p=0.003), and 6 mm lateralized (13±6 μm, p=0.003) baseplates (Fig.2). The full wedge (11±3 μm), half-wedge, and 3 mm lateralized baseplate also produced significantly less micromotion than the 6 mm lateralized (p=0.027, p=012, p=0.02, respectively). Both normal and tangential micromotion were highest at the 30° and 45° abduction angles (Fig.2). The effective load transfer area (ELTA) was lowest for the full wedge, followed by the half wedge, 6mm, 3mm, and standard baseplates (Fig.3) and increased with abduction angle. Glenoid baseplates with reduced lateralization and flat backside geometries resulted in the best outcomes with regards to normal and tangential micromotion. However, these types of implants are not always feasible due to the required amount of bone removal, and medialization of the bone-implant interface. Future work should study the acceptable levels of bone removal for patients with E-type glenoid erosion and the corresponding best implant selections for such cases. For any figures or tables, please contact the authors directly

Introduction. The degree of glenoid bone loss associated with primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis can influence the type of glenoid implant selected and its placement in total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). The literature has demonstrated inaccurate glenoid component placement when using standard instruments and two-dimensional (2D) imaging without templating, particularly as the degree of glenoid deformity or bone loss worsens. Published results have demonstrated improved accuracy of implant placement when using three-dimensional (3D) computed tomography (CT) imaging with implant templating and patient specific instrumentation (PSI). Accurate placement of the glenoid component in TSA is expected to decrease component malposition and better correct pathologic deformity in order to decrease the risk of component loosening and failure over time. Different types of PSI have been described. Some PSI use 3D printed single use disposable instrumentation, while others use adjustable and reusable-patient specific instrumentation (R-PSI). However, no studies have directly compared the accuracy of different types of PSI in shoulder arthroplasty. We combined our clinical experience and compare the accuracy of glenoid implant placement with five different types of instrumentation when using 3D CT imaging, preoperative planning and implant templating in a series of 173 patients undergoing primary TSA. Our hypothesis was that all PSI technologies would demonstrate equivalent accuracy of implant placement and that PSI would show the most benefit with more severe glenoid deformity. Discussion and Conclusions. We demonstrated no consistent differences in accuracy of 3D CT preoperative planning and templating with any type of PSI used. In Groups 1 and 2, standard instrumentation was used in a patient specific manner defined by the software and in Groups 3, 4, and 5 a patient specific instrument was used. In all groups, the two surgeons were very experienced with use of the 3D CT preoperative planning and templating software and all of the instrumentation prior to starting this study, as well as very experienced with shoulder arthroplasty. This is a strength of the study when defining the efficacy of the technology, but limits the generalizability of the findings when considering the effectiveness of the technology with surgeons that may not have as much experience with shoulder arthroplasty and/or the PSI technology. Conversely, it could be postulated that greater improvements in accuracy may be seen with the studied PSI technology, when compared to no 3D planning or PSI, with less experienced surgeons. There could also be differences between the PSI technologies when used by less experienced surgeons, either across all cases or based upon the severity of pathology. When the surgeon is part of the method, the effectiveness of the technology is equally dependent upon the surgeon using the technology. A broader study using different surgeons is required to test the effectiveness of this technology. Comparing the results of this study with published results in the literature, 3D CT imaging and implant templating with use of PSI results in more accurate placement of the glenoid implant when compared to 2D CT imaging without templating and use of standard instrumentation. In previous studies, this was most evident in patients with more severe bone deformity. We believe that 3D CT planning and templating provides the most value in defining the glenoid pathology, as well as in the selection of the optimal implant and its placement. However, it should be the judgment of the surgeon, based upon their experience, to select the instrumentation to best achieve the desired result

Introduction. Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty (rTSA) is an efficient treatment, to relieve from pain and to increase function. However, scapular notching remains a serious issue and post-operative range of motion (ROM) presents many variations. No study compared implant positioning, different implant combinations, different implant sizes on different types of patient representative to undergo for rTSA, on glenohumeral ROM in every degree of freedom. Material and Methods. From a CT-scan database classified by a senior surgeon, CT-exams were analysed by a custom software Glenosys® (Imascap®, Brest, France). Different glenoid implants types and positioning were combined to different humerus implant types. Range of motion was automatically computed. Patients with an impingement in initialisation position were excluded from the statistical analysis. To validate those measures, a validation bench was printed in 3D to analyse different configurations. Results. 25 patients were included; 50 configurations were realised per patient. The validation bench on 5 configurations retrieved an error of 1,5° ± 0,88°. The impingement rate and ROM were improved using lateralised glenoid implant types, inferior positioning glenoid implant types, 42mm glenospheres, decreased Neck Shaft Angles for humerus implants and humerus inset. Conclusion. Impingement in resting arm at side position and ROM can be maximised with an adequate implant choice. A surgical planning software could assist the surgeon to choose the best configuration for each patient to maximise the post-operative outcome (scapular notching and global range of motion)

Glenoid failure remains the most common mode of total shoulder arthroplasty failures. Porous tantalum metal (Trabecular Metal™, Zimmer) have grown in popularity in hip and knee arthroplasty. First-generation porous tantalum metal-backed glenoid components demonstrated metal debris, resulted in failure, and were revised to second-generation glenoid implants. Evidence for second-generation porous tantalum metal implants in shoulder arthroplasty is sparse.1–4 The purpose of this study was to assess clinical and radiographic outcomes in a series of patients with second-generation porous tantalum glenoid components at a minimum two-years postoperative. We retrospectively reviewed the clinical and radiographic outcomes of patients who received a second-generation porous tantalum glenoid component anatomic shoulder arthroplasty between May 2009 and December 2017 with minimum 24 months follow-up. The shoulder arthroplasties were performed by one of two senior fellowship-trained surgeons. We collected postoperative clinical outcome indicators: EQ5D visual analog scale (VAS), Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder (WOOS) Index, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) Score, and Constant Score (CS). Radiographic review was performed by an independent fellowship-trained surgeon. The Endrizzi metal debris grading system1 was utilized to grade metal debris. We computed descriptive statistics and compared outcome scores between groups via the non-parametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test, with group-wise comparisons defined by: metal debris and humeral head migration (secondary analyses). Thirty-five patients [23 male (65.7%) and 12 female (34.3%)] with 40 shoulder replacements participated in the study. Forty of 61 shoulders (65.6%) had an average of 64 ± 20.3 months follow-up (range 31 to 95). Average BMI was 27.5 ± 4.4 kg/m2 (range 19.5 to 39.1). The average postoperative EQ5D VAS at final follow-up was 74.6 ± 22.5, WOOS Index 87.9 ± 16.6, ASES Score 88.3 ± 10.9, and CS 80.4 ± 13. At final follow-up, 18 of 40 shoulders (45%) had metal debris [15 of 40 (37.5%) Endrizzi grade 1 and three of 40 (7.5%) Endrizzi grade 2], and 22 of 40 shoulders (55%) did not show evidence of metal debris. There was one non-revision reoperation (open subscapularis exploration), one shoulder with anterosuperior escape, three shoulders with glenoid radiolucencies indicative of possible glenoid loosening, and nine shoulders with superior migration of the humeral head (>2mm migration at final follow-up compared to immediate postoperative). When comparing postoperative scores between patients with vs without metal debris, we found no statistically significant difference in the EQ5D VAS, WOOS Index, ASES Score and CS. On further analyses, when comparing superior migration of the humeral head and postoperative outcomes scores, we found no statistically significant difference. We report the longest published follow-up with clinical and radiographic outcomes of second-generation porous tantalum glenoid anatomic shoulder arthroplasties. In this series of patients, 45% of total shoulder arthroplasties with a second-generation porous tantalum glenoid implant had radiographic evidence of metal debris. This metal debris was not statistically associated with poorer postoperative outcomes. Further investigation and ongoing follow-up are warranted

In an effort to address the relatively high rate of glenoid component lucent lines, loosening and failure, tantalum/trabecular metal glenoid implant fixation has evolved as it has in hip and knee arthroplasty. Trabecular metal-anchored glenoid implants used in a consecutive patient case series have demonstrated a lower failure rate than traditional all polyethylene cemented glenoids. Although the radiographs of some patients demonstrated small focal areas of lucency, none have become loose, and only two have actually demonstrated glenoid component failure due to a fracture 6 years after the index procedure. One with glenoid loosening was due to polyethylene wear from a massive cuff tear occurring 8 years after the index procedure. Most patients experienced significant improvements in shoulder range of motion and reduction in pain. Trabecular metal-anchored glenoids when carefully implanted do not produce excessive failure rates, but rather result in functional improvements while decreasing operative time

CT-based three-dimensional (3D) pre-operative imaging along with 2D orthogonal sections defined by the plane of the scapula (axial, sagittal and coronal planes) has been demonstrated by many research groups to be a very accurate way to define the bone pathology and alignment/subluxation of the humeral head in relationship to the center line of the scapula or the center of the glenoid fossa. When 3D CT imaging is combined with 3D implant templating the surgeon is best able to define the optimal implant and its location for the desired correction of the bone abnormalities. The use and value of 3D imaging is best when the there is more severe bone pathology and deformity. Transferring the computer-based information of implant location to the surgical site can involve multiple methods. The three methods discussed in the literature to date including use of standard instrumentation in a manner specified by the pre-operative planning, use of single-use patient specific instrumentation and use of reusable patient specific instrumentation. Several cadaver and sawbone studies have demonstrated significant improvement in placement of the glenoid implant with both single use and reusable patient specific instrumentation when compared to use of 2D imaging and standard instrumentation. Randomised clinical trials have also shown that 3D planning and implant templating is very effective in accurate placement of the implant in the desired location using all three types of instrumentation. The optimal use of this technology is dependent upon the severity of the pathology and the experience and preference of the surgeon. With more severe pathology and less surgeon experience 3D pre-operative imaging and templating and use of some level of patient specific instrumentation provides more accurate placement of the glenoid implant

INTRODUCTION. Preoperative planning software for reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) allows surgeons to virtually perform a reconstruction based off 3D models generated from CT scans of the glenohumeral joint. While anatomical studies have defined the range of normal values for glenoid version and inclination, there is no clear consensus on glenoid component selection and position for RTSA. The purpose of this study was to examine the distribution of chosen glenoid implant as a function of glenoid wear severity, and to evaluate the inter-surgeon variability of optimal glenoid component placement in RTSA. METHODS. CT scans from 45 patients with glenohumeral arthritis were planned by 8 fellowship trained shoulder arthroplasty specialists using a 3D preoperative planning software, planning each case for optimal implant selection and placement. The software provided four glenoid baseplate implant types: a standard non-augmented component, an 8° posterior augment wedged component, a 10° superior augment wedged component, and a combined 8° posterior and 10° superior wedged augment component. The software interface allowed the surgeons to control version, inclination, rotation, depth, anterior-posterior and superior-inferior position of the glenoid components in 1mm and 1° increments, which were recorded and compared for final implant position in each case. RESULTS. Two cases were excluded due to extreme deformity and consensus that a feasible RTSA may not be possible. For resultant implant version, a bimodal distribution was observed with a local maxima occurring at 0°, and a bell-shaped distribution at −5° of version. Upon individual surgeon analysis, it was revealed that certain surgeons had a preference to correct to 0 degrees, whereas others were more accepting of residual version. As well, the surgeons accepting residual retroversion removed less bone on average per implant type than the surgeons who aimed to correct to 0°. For resultant implant inclination, surgeons consistently tried to plan for 0 degrees of inclination. CONCLUSION. This study indicates that while there was limited consensus on the optimal reconstruction in any one case, there appear to be thresholds of retroversion and inclination that favor the use of augmented glenoid components based on frequency of selection. Our results indicate a wide variability in terms of what experienced shoulder surgeons consider to be an optimal reconstruction despite the common goal of attempting to restore anatomy, maximize implant fixation in bone and minimize bone removal. High frequency of augmented glenoid component use raises questions about how much retroversion and inclination is optimal and whether this technology allows surgeons to potentially focus more on a quantitative reconstruction relative to the Friedman axis versus a qualitative implant placement relative to what may be normal anatomy for a patient

Background. A challenge to obtaining proper glenoid placement in total shoulder arthroplasty is eccentric posterior bone loss and associated glenoid retroversion. This bone loss can lead to poor stability and perforation of the glenoid during arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the three dimensional morphology of the glenoid with associated bone loss for a spectrum of osteoarthritis patients using 3-D computed tomography imaging and simulation software. Methods. This study included 29 patients with advanced glenohumeral osteoarthritis treated with shoulder arthroplasty. Three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction of preoperative CT images was performed using image analysis software. Glenoid bone loss was measured at ten, vertically equidistant axial planes along the glenoid surface at four distinct anterior-posterior points on each plane for a total of 40 measurements per glenoid. The glenoid images were also fitted with a modeled pegged glenoid implant to predict glenoid perforation. Results. The average bone loss was greatest posteriorly in the AP plane at the central axis of the glenoid in the SI plane. Walch A2 and B1 shoulders had bone loss more centrally located, while Walch B2 shoulders displayed more posterior and inferior bone loss. There was a significant difference in the overall average bone loss for patients with no predicted peg perforation compared to patients predicted to have peg perforation (p=0.37). Peg perforation was most common in Walch B2 shoulders, in the posterior direction, and involved the central and posterior-inferior peg. Discussion. These data demonstrate a clear, anatomical pattern of glenoid bone loss for different classes of glenohumeral arthritis. These findings can be used to develop various models of glenoid bone loss to guide surgeons, predict failures, and help develop better glenoid implant

Radiolucent lines in total shoulder arthroplasty around the glenoid component are not uncommon in post-operative x-rays and the incidence varies. A certain percentage progress and as the lines enlarge can lead to component loosening. One study reported a 9% incidence at 2 years and 27% incidence at 5 years. A recent long term study (15 to 20 years) reported a 73% incidence. Radiolucent lines can be caused by anatomy (posterior glenoid wear) or pathology (inflammatory arthritis) as well as technical factors such as glenoid implant design (metal back) and improper implantation techniques where the prosthesis is not fully seated or cement is used to fill a defect. Every attempt should be made to avoid lucent lines. Minimal bone should be removed from the glenoid vault and a pressure injection type of insertion is helpful in getting the cement into the cancellous bone. Furthermore a peg type of glenoid implant rather than a keel type is preferred as this has been associated with a lower incidence of radiolucent lines

Background. Total shoulder arthroplasty is technically demanding in regards to implantation of the glenoid component, especially in the setting of increased glenoid deformity and posterior glenoid wear. Augmented glenoid implants are an important and innovative option; however, there is little evidence accessible to surgeons to guide in the selection of the appropriate size augmented glenoid. Methods. Solid computer models of a commercially available augmented glenoid components (+3, +5, +7) contained within the software allowed for placement of the best fit glenoid component within the 3D reconstruct of each patient's scapula. Peg perforation, amount of bone reamed and amount of medialization were recorded for each augment size. Results. There was strong correlation between the medialization of the joint line and the glenoid retroversion for each augmented component (R. 2. of 0.785 for the +3 augment, an R. 2. of 0.792 for the +5 component, and an R. 2. of 0.701 for the +7 component). The range of retroversion that restored anatomic joint line using the +3 augmented glenoid was −3° to −17°, −5° to −24° using the +5 augmented glenoid, and −9° to −31° for a +7 augmented glenoid. Conclusions. Our results provide a general guideline for clinicians to select an appropriate sized augmented glenoid implant based on range of glenoid retroversion that can be corrected to restore the native joint line and minimize peg perforation. There was a strong correlation between glenoid retroversion and medialization for all augment sizes supporting the recommendation for glenoid retroversion as the primary guide in selecting the amount of augmentation

Introduction. Varying degrees of posterior glenoid bone loss occurs in patients with end stage osteoarthritis and can result in increased glenoid retroversion. The excessive retroversion can affect implant stability, eccentric glenoid loading, and fixation stresses. Ultimately, the goal is to correct retroversion to restore normal biomechanics of the glenohumeral joint. The objective of this study was to identify the optimal augmented glenoid design based on finite element analysis (FEA) modeling which will provide key insights into implant loosening mechanisms and stability. Materials and Methods. Two different augmented glenoid designs, posterior wedge and posterior step- were created as a computer model by a computer aided design software (CAD). These implant CAD models were created per precise manufacturers dimensions and sizes of the augmented implant designs. These implants were virtually implanted to correct 20° glenoid retroversion and the different mechanical parameters were calculated including: the glenohumeral subluxation force, relative micromotion at the bone-cement interface the glenoid, implant and cement mantle stress levels. The FEA model was then utilized to make measurements while the simulating abduction with the different implant designs. The biomechanical response parameters were compared between the models at comparable retroversion correction. Results. The model prediction of force ratio for the augmented wedge design was 0.56 and for the augmented step design was 0.87. The step design had higher force ratio than the wedge one at similar conformity settings. Micromotion was defined as a combination of three components based on different directions. The distraction measured for the wedge design was 0.05 mm and for the step component, 0.14 mm. Both implants showed a similar pattern translation wise. The greatest difference between the two implants was from the compression standpoint, where the step component showed almost three times more movement than the wedge design implant. Overall, the step design registered greater micromotion than the wedge one during abduction physiologic loading. The level of stress generated during abduction on the glenoid vault was 1.65 MPa for the wedge design and 3.78 MPa for the step one. All stress levels were found below the determined bone failure limit for the bone and polyethylene (10–20 MPa). Concerning implant stress, the results measured on the backside of the wedge and step components were 6.62 MPa and 13.25 MPa, respectively. Both components showed high level of stress level measured on the cement mantle, which exceeded the endurance limit for cement fracture (4 MPa). Discussion. The augmented glenoid is a novel surgical implant for use in with severe glenohumeral osteoarthritis. Unlike standard glenoid prosthetics, the augmented glenoid is better suited for correcting moderate to severe retroversion. Whereas a step design might provide higher glenohumeral stability, the tradeoff is higher glenoid vault, implant and cement mantle stress levels, and micromotion, indicating higher risks of implant loosening, failure or fracture over time, leading to poorer clinical outcomes and higher revision rates

Introduction. Posterior glenoid wear is common with glenohumeral osteoarthritis. To correct posterior wear, surgeons may eccentrically ream the anterior glenoid to restore version. However, eccentric reaming undermines prosthesis support by removing unworn anterior glenoid bone, compromises cement fixation by increasing the likelihood of peg perforation, and medializes the joint line which has implications on joint stability. To conserve bone and preserve the joint line when correcting glenoid version, manufacturers have developed posterior augment glenoids for aTSA and rTSA applications. This clinical study quantifies outcomes achieved using posteriorly augmented aTSA/rTSA glenoid implants in patients with severe posterior glenoid wear at 2 years minimum follow-up. Methods. 47 patients (mean age: 68.7yrs) with 2 years minimum follow-up were treated by 5 fellowship trained orthopaedic surgeons using either 8° posteriorly augmented aTSA/rTSA glenoid components in patients with severe posterior glenoid wear. 24 aTSA patients received posteriorly augmented glenoids (65.8 yrs; 7F/17M) for OA and 23 rTSA patients received posteriorly augmented glenoids (71.8 yrs; 9F/14M) for treatment of CTA and OA. Outcomes were scored using SST, UCLA, ASES, Constant, and SPADI metrics; active abduction, forward flexion, and external rotation were also measured to quantify function. Average follow-up was 27.5 months (aTSA 29.4; rTSA 25.5). A two-tailed, unpaired t-test identified differences (p<0.05) in pre-operative, post-operative, and pre-to-post improvements. Results. A comparison of pre-operative, post-operative, and pre-to-post improvement in outcomes are presented in Tables 1–3, respectively. As described in Table 1, pre-operative outcomes were similar for patients receiving posterior augment aTSA and posterior augment rTSA implants, with only active abduction being significantly less in rTSA patients. Additionally, rTSA patients were noted to be significantly older (p=0.0434) and have significantly longer follow-up (p=0.0358) though no difference was noted in mean patient height, weight, or BMI between cohorts. As described in Table 2, at 2 years minimum follow-up posterior augment aTSA patients were associated with significantly greater SST scores and also had significantly more active abduction and active external rotation than posterior augment rTSA patients. However, as described in Table 3, no significant difference was observed in pre-to-post improvement of outcome scoring metrics and only improvement in active external rotation was observed to be significantly different between the two cohorts. No complications were reported for either posterior augment implant cohort. Conclusions. These results demonstrate positive outcomes can be achieved at 2 years minimum follow-up in patients with severe posterior wear using either posteriorly augmented aTSA/rTSA glenoid implants. While relative differences in outcomes were noted, these mean differences are expected due to differing indications and associated differences in rotator cuff status. Due to the aforementioned concerns of aseptic glenoid loosening in patients with severe posterior glenoid wear, some have recommend treating patients with posterior glenoid wear using only rTSA regardless of the status of the patient's rotator cuff. The results of this study demonstrate that patients with posterior glenoid wear and a functioning rotator cuff can be successfully treated with posterior augmented aTSA as well. Additional and longer-term follow-up is needed to confirm these positive outcomes