Title
Accuracy of placement of the glenoid component in reversed shoulder arthroplasty with and without navigationAccuracy of placement of the glenoid component in reversed shoulder arthroplasty with and without navigation
Author
Faculty/Department
Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences
Research group
Antwerp Surgical Training, Anatomy and Research Centre (ASTARC)
Publication type
article
Publication
St. Louis, Mo.,
Subject
Human medicine
Source (journal)
Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery. - St. Louis, Mo.
Volume/pages
20(2011):1, p. 21-26
ISSN
1058-2746
ISI
000285982600010
Carrier
E
Target language
English (eng)
Full text (Publishers DOI)
Affiliation
University of Antwerp
Abstract
Hypothesis Navigation can improve accuracy of placement of the glenoid component in reversed shoulder arthroplasty. Material and methods A glenoid component of a reversed shoulder prosthesis was implanted in 14 paired scapulohumeral cadaver specimens. Seven procedures with standard instrumentation were compared with 7 procedures using navigation. The intraoperative goal was to place the component centrally in the glenoid in the axial plane and 10° inferiorly tilted in the frontal plane. Glenoid component version and tilt and screw placement were studied using CT scan and macroscopic dissection. Results The mean version of the glenoid component in the standard instrumentation group was 8.7° of anteversion, compared with 3.1° of anteversion in the navigated group. The mean tilt of the glenoid component was 0.9° in the standard group and 5.4° of inferior tilt in the navigated group. Using navigation, the range of error for version was 8° (SD 3.3°) compared to 12° (SD 4.1°) in controls. For tilt, the range of error was 8° (SD 3.6°) in navigated specimens and 16° (SD 6.0°) for controls. In the control group, there were no perforations of the central peg, but 1 inferior screw and 4 superior screws were malpositioned. In the navigation group, no central peg perforated, all inferior screws were correctly positioned, and 2 superior screws were malpositioned. Conclusion Computer navigation was more accurate and more precise than standard instrumentation in its placement of the glenoid component in reversed shoulder arthroplasty.
E-info
http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000285982600010&DestLinkType=RelatedRecords&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=ef845e08c439e550330acc77c7d2d848
http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000285982600010&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=ef845e08c439e550330acc77c7d2d848
http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000285982600010&DestLinkType=CitingArticles&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=ef845e08c439e550330acc77c7d2d848
Handle