Abstract
INTRODUCTION
3D preoperative planning software for anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (ATSA) provides surgeons with increased ability to visualize complex joint relationships and deformities. Interestingly, the advent of such software has seemed to create less of a consensus on the optimal way to plan an ATSA rather than more. In this study, a survey of shoulder specialists from the American Shoulder and Elbow Society (ASES) was conducted to examine thought patterns in current ATSA implant selection and placement.
METHODS
172 ASES members completed an 18-question survey on their thought process for how they select and place an ATSA glenoid implant. Data was collected using a custom online Survey Monkey survey. Surgeon answers were split into two cohorts based on number of arthroplasties performed per year: between 0–75 was considered low volume (LV), and between 75–200+ was considered high volume (HV). Data was analyzed for each cohort to examine differences in thought patterns, implant selection, and implant placement.
RESULTS
70 surgeons were grouped into the LV cohort, and 102 surgeons were grouped into the HV cohort. 46.1% of surgeons in the HV cohort reported using a preoperative planning software for the majority of cases vs. 41.4% in the LV cohort, 48% of surgeons in the HV cohort reported seldom use vs. 24.3% in the LV cohort, and 5.9% of surgeons in the HV cohort reported no use vs. 34.3% in the LV cohort (Figure 1). When questioned on what percentage of ATSA cases do surgeons use augmented glenoid implants, 20.6% in the HV cohort responded never using augments vs. 30% in the LV cohort, 39.2% responded using augments <15% of the time in the HV cohort vs. 34.3% in the LV cohort, 26.5% responded using augments between 15–45% of the time in the HV cohort vs. 28.6% in the LV cohort, and 13.7% responded using augments >45% of the time in the HV cohort vs. 7.2% in the LV cohort (Figure 2). When asked what the maximum allowable residual retroversion for an ATSA glenoid implant is, surgeons answered 0–5° 6.9% of the time in the HV cohort vs. 4.3% in the LV cohort, 6–9° 35.6% of the time in the HV cohort vs. 50% in the LV cohort, 10–12° 34.7% of the time in the HV cohort vs. 32.9% in the LV cohort, 13–15° 10.9% of the time in the HV cohort vs. 8.6% in the LV cohort, and lastly >16° 11.9% of the time in the HV cohort vs. 4.3% in the LV cohort (Figure 3).
CONCLUSION
Research suggests ATSA glenoid implants may be less forgiving of malalignment than reverse shoulder glenoid implants, but the contrasting survey results in this study reveal that a consensus in optimal placement has yet to be reached. Interestingly, even though HV use more augmented glenoid components than LV surgeons, HV surgeons are more accepting of residual glenoid component retroversion than LV surgeons. Despite these differences, there is no way to prove the optimal implant selection and placement without long-term clinical outcomes.
For any figures or tables, please contact the authors directly.
