Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 30, 2025
The Use of Mixed Reality in Custom-Made Revision Hip Arthroplasty: A First Case Report
Published on: August 4, 2022
Concordance of Preoperative 3D Templating in Stemless Anatomic Total Shoulder Arthroplasty
Albert J Rechenmacher1, Daniel E Goltz, John R Wickman
1From the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Duke University Hospital, Durham, NC (Rechenmacher, Goltz, Wickman, Levin, Klifto, Lassiter, and Anakwenze), and the Department of Biostatistics & Bioinformatics, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC (Schappe and Green).
Introduction:
Recent advances in preoperative 3D templating software allow surgeons to plan implant size and position for stemless total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). Whether these preoperative plans accurately reflect intraoperative decisions is yet unknown, and the purpose of this study was to evaluate concordance between planned and actual implant sizes in a series of patients undergoing stemless TSA.
Methods:
A retrospective cohort of consecutive, anatomic, stemless TSA cases performed by two surgeons between September 2019 and February 2021 was examined. Preoperative templated plans were collected using 3D planning software, and the sizes of planned glenoid, humeral head, and nucleus "stem" implants and other procedural data were recorded, along with sociodemographic information. These predicted parameters were compared with the implant sizes, and the concordance of these templated plans was quantified by direct comparison and bootstrapped simulations.
Results:
Fifty cases met inclusion criteria, among which perfect concordance across all three implants was observed in 11 cases (22%). The glenoid implant had the highest concordance (80%) relative to the humeral head and nucleus implants (38% and 60%, respectively), which was statistically significant ( P < 0.001). Planned humeral head implants were more often oversized relative to their actual implanted size. However, 84% of the planned humeral heads were within 1 diameter size; in addition, 98% of the planned glenoid implants were within one size and all were within 10 mm of the implanted glenoid backside radius. All nucleus implants were within one size.
Discussion:
Final implant sizes demonstrated variable concordance relative to preoperative plans, with glenoid implants having the highest accuracy and humeral heads having the highest variability. Multiple factors contributed to the varying concordances for the different implants, suggesting possible areas of improvement in this technology. These results may have implications for logistics, intraoperative efficiency, and overall cost and underscore the potential value of this technology.
Level Of Evidence:
Level III.
