Download PDF
Z Orthop Unfall
DOI: 10.1055/a-2346-9916
Videopaper

Implantation of Reverse Shoulder Endoprothesis Using Navigation

Article in several languages: deutsch | English
Olaf Rolf
1   Franziskus-Hospital Harderberg, Department for Orthopedics and Traumatology, Niels-Stensen-Kliniken GmbH, Georgsmarienhütte, Deutschland (Ringgold ID: RIN219505)
,
Andreas Blana
1   Franziskus-Hospital Harderberg, Department for Orthopedics and Traumatology, Niels-Stensen-Kliniken GmbH, Georgsmarienhütte, Deutschland (Ringgold ID: RIN219505)
,
Philipp Hagedorn
1   Franziskus-Hospital Harderberg, Department for Orthopedics and Traumatology, Niels-Stensen-Kliniken GmbH, Georgsmarienhütte, Deutschland (Ringgold ID: RIN219505)
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The implantation of a reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is a proven method for pain relief and improvement in shoulder function. Results vary, depending on the patient’s age, the severity of the disease, and the experience of the surgeon. Indications for RSA are diverse, ranging from rotator cuff arthropathy to fractures. Recent studies show improved survival rates and reduced complications after primary implantation. Preoperative planning using 3D-CT or MRI is considered to be the gold standard. Patient-specific instruments (PSI) have been introduced, but are associated with costs and waiting times. Navigation with augmented reality (AR) provides a more efficient alternative. The intraoperative transfer of the plan to the patient is carried out via AR glasses, allowing real-time information without having to divert the surgeon’s attention from the surgical site. This optimises the workflow and potentially yields more precise implantation results. In summary, the combination of 3D planning, navigation, and AR offers a promising method for precise and efficient RSA-implantations. Nevertheless, long-term results and functional scores are not yet available.

Keywords

reverse shoulderarthroplasty - navigation - augmented reality


Publication History

Received: 30 December 2023

Accepted after revision: 16 June 2024

Article published online:
09 September 2024

© 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Rolf O, Werner B, Gohlke F. Inverse Endoprothese bei Defektarthropathie. In: Gohlke F, Hedtmann A. Orthopädie und Orthopädische Chirurgie: Schulter. 2. Stuttgart, New York: Thieme; 2024. im Druck
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 2 Chelli M, Boileau P, Domos P. et al. Survivorship of Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty According to Indication, Age and Gender. J Clin Med 2022; 11: 2677
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Cuff D, Clark R, Pupello D. et al. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of rotator cuff deficiency: a concise follow-up, at a minimum of five years, of a previous report. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2012; 94: 1996-2000
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Sirveaux F, Favard L, Oudet D. et al. Grammont inverted total shoulder arthroplasty in the treatment of glenohumeral osteoarthritis with massive rupture of the cuff. Results of a multicentre study of 80 shoulders. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2004; 86: 388-395
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Zumstein MA, Pinedo M, Old J. et al. Problems, complications, reoperations, and revisions in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2011; 20: 146-157
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Galvin JW, Kim R, Ment A. et al. Outcomes and complications of primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty with minimum of 2 years’ follow-up: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2022; 31: e534-e544
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Parada SA, Flurin PH, Wright TW. et al. Comparison of complication types and rates associated with anatomic and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2021; 30: 811-818
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Iannotti JP, Weiner S, Rodriguez E. et al. Three-dimensional imaging and templating improve glenoid implant positioning. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2015; 97: 651-658
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Werner BS, Hudek R, Burkhart KJ. et al. The influence of three-dimensional planning on decision-making in total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2017; 26: 1477-1483
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Schoch BS, Haupt E, Leonor T. et al. Computer navigation leads to more accurate glenoid targeting during total shoulder arthroplasty compared with 3-dimensional preoperative planning alone. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2020; 29: 2257-2263
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Gauci MO. Patient-specific guides in orthopedic surgery. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2022; 108: 103154
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Furman AA, Hsu WK. Augmented Reality (AR) in Orthopedics: Current Applications and Future Directions. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 2021; 14: 397-405
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Cabarcas BC, Cvetanovich GL, Gowd AK. et al. Accuracy of patient-specific instrumentation in shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JSES Open Access 2019; 3: 117-129
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Rojas JT, Lädermann A, Ho SWL. et al. Glenoid Component Placement Assisted by Augmented Reality Through a Head-Mounted Display During Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty. Arthrosc Tech 2022; 11: e863-e874
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Kriechling P, Loucas R, Loucas M. et al. Augmented reality through head-mounted display for navigation of baseplate component placement in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a cadaveric study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2023; 143: 169-175
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Daher M, Ghanimeh J, Otayek J. et al. Augmented reality and shoulder replacement: a state-of-the-art review article. JSES Rev Rep Tech 2023; 3: 274-278
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar