• Thomas Wittmann, Nima Befrui, Tim Rieger, and Patric Raiss.
• OCM (Orthopädische Chirurgie München) Clinic, Steinerstrasse 6, 81369, Munich, Germany. th-wittmann@gmx.de.
• Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2023 Jul 1; 143 (7): 373537413735-3741.

IntroductionThree-dimensional surgical planning software provides virtual reconstructions of the shoulder with automated joint indices for a preoperative case assessment. The aim of this single center study was to evaluate the concordance between the preoperatively selected humeral components and the final implants used in shoulder arthroplasty.Methods129 cases who had undergone anatomic (n = 16) or reverse shoulder arthroplasty (n = 117) using the same type of uncemented short stem implant and were included for review in this study. The type of arthroplasty, stem size, stem inclination, tray-offset and liner-thickness were noted preoperatively and compared to the final implant specifications used in surgery.ResultsThe type of arthroplasty matched the surgical plan in 99.2% of cases, as one case was converted from RSA to TSA. The concordance of planned to implanted stem size was 44.2% and the planned size was in range of one adjacent size in 87.6% of cases. Stem inclination in TSA matched the surgical plan in 50% of cases. Tray offset in RSA was predicted correctly in 65% and liner-thickness matched the surgical plan in 98.3% of cases.ConclusionDespite a low degree of concordance of planned to implanted stem sizes of 44.2%, the choice of stem size was found to be in range of one adjacent size in 87.6% of cases. Further investigations of other contributing factors are necessary to increase the accuracy of the preoperative selection of humeral implants.Level Of Evidencelevel IV, retrospective case study.© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.

14 keywords...

hide…