Little guidance exists regarding the minimum screw length and number necessary to achieve fixation with reverse shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA). The goal of this study is to quantify the pre- and post-cyclic baseplate displacements associated with two baseplate designs of different sizes using multiple screw lengths and numbers in a low density polyurethane bone substitute model. The test was conducted according to ASTM F 2028–17. The baseplate displacements of standard and small reverse shoulder constructs (Equinoxe, Exactech, Inc.) were quantified in a 15pcf polyurethane block (Pacific Research, Inc.) before and after cyclic testing with an applied load of 750N for 10,000 cycles. Baseplates were constructed using 2 or 4 screws with 3 different poly-axial locking compression screw lengths: 4.5×18mm, 4.5×30mm, and 4.5×46mm. Five of each configuration were tested for a total of 30 specimens for each baseplate. A two-tailed, unpaired student's t-test (p<0.05) compared baseplate displacements before and after cyclic loading in both the superior-inferior (S/I) and anterior-posterior (A/P) directions. The standard and small results were then compared.Introduction
Methods
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. 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.INTRODUCTION
METHODS
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. 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.INTRODUCTION
METHODS
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. 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.INTRODUCTION
METHODS
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. 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 BaSO4 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].INTRODUCTION
METHODS
Preoperative planning software for anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (ATSA) allows surgeons to virtually perform a reconstruction based off 3D models generated from CT scans of the glenohumeral joint. 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 ATSA. 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 three implant types: a standard non-augmented glenoid component, and an 8° and 16° posterior augment wedge glenoid 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.INTRODUCTION
METHODS
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. 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.INTRODUCTION
METHODS
As computer navigated surgery continues to progress to the forefront of orthopedic care, the application of a navigated total shoulder arthroplasty has yet to appear. However, the accuracy of these systems is debated, as well as the dilemma of placing an accurate tool in an inaccurate hand. Often times a system's accuracy is claimed or validated based on postoperative imaging, but the true positioning is difficult to verify. In this study, a navigation system was used to preoperatively plan, guide, and implant surrogate shoulder glenoid implants and fiducials in nine cadaveric shoulders. A novel method to validate the position of these implants and accuracy of the system was performed using pre and post operative high resolution CT scans, in conjunction with barium sulfate impregnated PEEK surrogate implants. Nine cadaveric shoulders were CT scanned with .5mm slice thickness, and the digital models were incorporated into a preoperative planning software. Five orthopedic shoulder specialists used this software to virtually place aTSA and rTSA glenoid components in two cadavers each (one cadaver was omitted due to incomplete implantation), positioning the components as they best deemed fit. Using a navigation system, each surgeon registered the native cadaveric bone to each respective CT. Each surgeon then used the navigation system to guide him or her through the total shoulder replacement, and implant the barium sulfate impregnated PEEK surrogate implants. Four cylindrical PEEK fiducials were also implanted in each scapula to help triangulate the position of the surrogate implants. Previous efforts were attempted with stainless steel alloy fiducials, but position and image accuracy were limited by CT artifact. BaSO4 PEEK provided the highest resolution on a postoperative CT with as little artifact as possible. All PEEK fiducials and surrogate implants were registered by probing points and planes with the navigation system to capture the digital position. A high resolution post operative CT scan of each specimen was obtained, and variance between the executed surgical plan and PEEK fiducials was calculated.INTRODUCTION
METHODS
