Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 1, 2025
Dynamic Navigation for Dental Implant Placement
Published on: September 13, 2022
Planned Glenoid Implant Utilization: A Comparison of Preoperative Planning with and Without Computer-Assisted
Bradley S Schoch1, Kevin A Hao, Jennifer M Traverse
1From the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL (Schoch and Traverse), College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL (Hao and King), Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI (Aibinder), Exactech Inc., Gainesville, FL (Polakovic and Elwell), Hospital For Special Surgery, Palm Beach, FL (Simovitch), Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA (Horneff).
Background:
Preoperative planning for anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) is becoming increasingly common. While preoperative planning allows surgeons to determine individualized implant types, utilization of intraoperative navigation improves the accuracy of implant placement and may increase confidence in the preoperative plan. The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the rate at which surgeons use a glenoid implant different than their preoperative plan with and without the use of computer navigation.
Methods:
A retrospective review of a multicenter prospectively collected shoulder arthroplasty database was conducted between 2016 and 2022. Inclusion criteria were primary aTSA or rTSA with an available preoperative plan and record of the actual implant used. Change in glenoid implant was defined as a deviation in the final implant from the preoperative plan in regard to backside shape (nonaugmented vs augment or differing augment shape).
Results:
We included 1,915 shoulder arthroplasties (525 aTSA, 1,390 rTSA) performed with preoperative planning and intraoperative navigation and 110 shoulder athroplasties (37 aTSA, 73 rTSA) performed with preoperative planning alone. Overall, the final glenoid implant deviated from the preoperative plan less frequently when intraoperative navigation was used compared with preoperative planning alone (1.9% [n = 36] versus 7.3% [n = 8], P = 0.002). When stratified by procedure, deviation from the preoperative plan occurred significantly less for rTSA when preoperative planning was used with intraoperative navigation versus planning alone (2% [n = 29] versus 11% [n = 8], P < 0.001; OR = 0.17 [95% CI = 0.07 to 0.46]), but not aTSA (1% [n = 7] versus 0% [n = 0], P = 1). Use of intraoperative navigation was independently associated with lower odds of deviation from the preoperative plan on multivariable logistic regression (OR = 0.25 [95% CI = 0.11 to 0.56], P = 0.001).
Conclusion:
Use of intraoperative navigation is associated with increased adherence to the preoperative plan for primary rTSA. Use of navigation may increase surgeon confidence despite known limitations of glenoid visualization during this procedure. This may offer advantages in outpatient surgery centers and smaller hospitals where inventory space may be limited.
Level Of Evidence:
Ⅲ, retrospective cohort study.
