English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Total Shoulder Arthroplasty (TSA) anatomical, reverse or both is an increasingly popular procedure but the glenoid component is still a weak element, accounting for 30–50% of mechanical complications and contributing to the revision burden. Component mal-positioning is one of the main aetiological factors in glenoid failure and thus Patient-Specific Instrumentation (PSI) has been introduced in an effort to optimise implant placement. The aim of this systematic literature review and meta-analysis is to compare the success of PSI and Standard Instrumentation (STDI) methods in reproducing pre-operative surgical planning of glenoid component positioning.    Material and methods  A search (restricted to English language) was conducted in November 2017 on MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE and ClinicalTrials.gov. Using the search terms “Patient-Specific Instrumentation (PSI)”, “custom guide”, “shoulder”, “glenoid” and “arthroplasty”, 42 studies were identified. The main exclusion criteria were: no CT-scan analysis results; studies done on plastic bone; and use of a reusable or generic guide. Eligible studies evaluated final deviations from the planning for version, inclination, entry point and rotation. Reviewers worked independently to extract data and assess the risk of bias on the same studies.    Results  The final analysis included 12 studies, comprising 227 participants (seven studies on 103 humans and five studies on 124 cadaveric specimens). Heterogeneity was moderate or high for all parameters. Deviations from the pre-operative planning for version (p<0.01), inclination (p<0.01) and entry point (p = 0.02) were significantly lower with the PSI than with the STDI, but not for rotation (p = 0.49). Accuracy (deviation from planning) with PSI was about 1.88° to 4.96°, depending on the parameter. The number of component outliers (>10° of deviation or 4mm) were significantly higher with STDI than with PSI (68.6% vs 15.3% (p = 0.01)).    Conclusion  This review supports the idea that PSI enhances glenoid component positioning, especially a decrease in the number of outliers. However, the findings are not definitive and further validation is required. It should be noted that no randomised clinical studies are available to confirm long-term outcomes.

Use of Patient-Specific Instrumentation (PSI) for glenoid component positioning in shoulder arthroplasty. A systematic review and meta-analysis