Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 23, 2025
Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty
Published on: July 5, 2011
Is preoperative planning effective for intraoperative glenoid implant size and type selection during anatomic and
Patric Raiss1, Gilles Walch2, Thomas Wittmann1
1Shoulder and Elbow Department, OCM, Munich, Germany.
Introduction:
Preoperative 3D planning programs for anatomic (TSA) and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) allow the analysis of glenohumeral joint pathoanatomy and templating for implant size selection and placement. The aim of this multicenter study was to compare the preoperative glenoid implant type and size planned to the final glenoid implant type and size used intraoperatively.
Methods:
Two hundred patients (100 TSA and 100 RSA) with a mean age of 72 years who had undergone preoperative planning and subsequent shoulder arthroplasty (100 TSA and 100 RSA) were included. All preoperative plans were saved and were analyzed for arthroplasty type (TSA vs. RSA), implant type (augment vs. nonaugment), and size (ie, polyethylene size, polyethylene radius of curvature, glenoid baseplate diameter, baseplate post length, and baseplate lateralization). The preoperative plan was available during surgery and was compared to the final implants inserted by the surgeon.
Results:
There were no intraoperative conversions of TSA to RSA or vice versa. In patients planned for a TSA, complete concordance between the preoperative plan and final implant selection was 85%. A complete mismatch for TSA glenoid size, backside radius of curvature, and augmentation occurred in 2%. For RSA, complete concordance was found in 90% of cases. A complete mismatch for implant type, size, post length, and glenosphere size occurred in 3%.
Conclusion:
A high concordance was found between preoperative 3D planning implant selection and the glenoid component inserted at surgery for TSA and RSA. This high concordance may assist with surgical preparedness, implant stocks, and possibly future implant production.
