Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30133482›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2018

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

Guillaume Villatte, Anne-Sophie Muller, Bruno Pereira, Aurélien Mulliez, Peter Reilly, Roger Emery

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06611059 (Design of Patient Specific Guides), which is not on this map. Cited by 44 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT06611059 completednot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Design of Patient Specific Guides (PSG) for Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorFundació Institut de Recerca de l'Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant PauRan2023 to 2024Enrolled11ConditionsProximal Humeral FractureArmsPSG
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

44 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. [Virtual reality and digital shoulder surgery].Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Shoulder arthroplasty in the elderly.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2025
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Artificial intelligence: revolutionizing robotic surgery: review.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2024
    Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Guillaume VillatteService d'Orthopédie-Traumatologie, Hôpital Gabriel Montpied, Clermont Ferrand, France.ORCID 0000-0002-4322-6304
Anne-Sophie MullerService d'Orthopédie-Traumatologie, Hôpital Gabriel Montpied, Clermont Ferrand, France.
Bruno PereiraDRCI, CHU de Clermont Ferrand, Clermont Ferrand, France.
Aurélien MulliezDRCI, CHU de Clermont Ferrand, Clermont Ferrand, France.
Peter ReillyBioengineering Department, Imperial College, London, United Kingdom.
Roger EmeryBioengineering Department, Imperial College, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionTotal 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

methodsA 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.

resultsThe 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)).

conclusionThis 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.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, ShoulderGlenoid CavityHumansImaging, Three-DimensionalPatient PositioningPatient-Specific ModelingPrecision MedicinePrinting, Three-DimensionalSurgery, Computer-Assisted

Identifiers

PMID30133482
PMCPMC6104947

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.