Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 19, 2025
Three-Dimensional Preoperative Virtual Planning in Derotational Proximal Femoral Osteotomy
Published on: February 17, 2023
Difference analysis of the glenoid centerline between 3D preoperative planning and 3D printed prosthesis manipulation
Chi-Pin Hsu1, Chen-Te Wu2, Chao-Yu Chen3
1High Speed 3D Printing Research Center, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taipei, Taiwan.
Introduction:
Excessive version and inclination of the glenoid component during total shoulder arthroplasty can lead to glenohumeral instability, early loosening, and even failure. The orientation and position of the central pin determine the version and inclination of the glenoid component. The purpose of this study was to compare the differences in centerline position and orientation obtained using "3D preoperative planning based on the best-fit method for glenoid elements" and the surgeon's manipulation.
Materials And Methods:
Twenty-nine CT images of glenohumeral osteoarthritis of the shoulder were reconstructed into a 3D model, and a 3D printer was used to create an in vitro model for the surgeon to drill the center pin. The 3D shoulder model was also used for 3D preoperative planning (3DPP) using the best-fit method for glenoid elements. The in vitro model was scanned and the version, inclination and center position were measured to compare with the 3DPP results.
Results:
The respective mean inclinations (versions) of the surgeon and 3DPP were -2.63° ± 6.60 (2.87° ± 5.97) and -1.96° ± 4.24 (-3.21° ± 4.00), respectively. There was no significant difference in the inclination and version of the surgeon and 3DPP. For surgeons, the probability of the inclination and version being greater than 10° was 13.8% (4/29) and 10.3% (3/29), respectively. Compared to the 3DPP results, the surgeon's center position was shifted down an average of 1.63 mm. There was a significant difference in the center position of the surgeon and 3DPP (p < 0.05).
Conclusion:
The central pin drilled by surgeons using general instruments was significantly lower than those defined using 3D preoperative planning and standard central definitions. 3D preoperative planning prevents the version and inclination of the centerline from exceeding safe values (± 10°).
