ArticleClinics in shoulder and elbow2023
Mixed reality visualization in shoulder arthroplasty: is it better than traditional preoperative planning software?
Article in Clinics in shoulder and elbow, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Artificial intelligence in shoulder arthroplasty: latest concepts and clinical integration.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Review
- A review of head-mounted devices for surgical education, preoperative planning and intraoperative navigation.Updates in surgery · 2026Review
- Advancing Precision in Shoulder Arthroplasty: Patient-Specific Instrumentation, Navigation, and Emerging Technologies.Clinics in orthopedic surgery · 2025Review
- Advances in shoulder surgical education. What are the realities?Journal of hand and microsurgery · 2025Review
- Application of Augmented Reality in Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- A review of patient matched implants for shoulder arthroplasty.JSES international · 2025Review
- Improving glenoid guidewire placement in shoulder arthroplasty: a comparative study of mixed reality holographic overlay technique with freehand technique and conventional navigation.JSES international · 2025Article
- Computer-Assisted Navigation in Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Current trends in shoulder arthroplasty - Are the trends backed by evidence?Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2025Article
- Clinical validation of enhanced CT imaging for distal radius fractures through conditional Generative Adversarial Networks (cGAN).PloS one · 2024Article
- Recent Advances in the Design and Application of Shoulder Arthroplasty Implant Systems and Their Impact on Clinical Outcomes: A Comprehensive Review.Orthopedic research and reviews · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPreoperative traditional software planning (TSP) is a method used to assist surgeons with implant selection and glenoid guide-pin insertion in shoulder arthroplasty. Mixed-Reality (MR) is a new technology that uses digital holograms of the preoperative plan and guide-pin trajectory projected into the operative field. The purpose of this study was to compare TSP to MR in a simulated surgical environment involving insertion of guide-pins into models of severely deformed glenoids.
methodsEight surgeons inserted guide-pins into eight randomized three-dimensional-printed severely eroded glenoid models in a simulated surgical environment using either TSP or MR. In total, 128 glenoid models were used and statistically compared. The outcomes compared between techniques included procedural time, difference in guide-pin start point, difference in version and inclination, and surgeon confidence via a confidence rating scale.
resultsWhen comparing traditional preoperative software planning to MR visualization as techniques to assist surgeons in glenoid guide pin insertion, there were no statistically significant differences in terms of mean procedure time (P=0.634), glenoid start-point (TSP = 2.2 ± 0.2 mm , MR = 2.1 ± 0.1 mm; P=0.760), guide-pin orientation (P=0.586), or confidence rating score (P=0.850).
conclusionsThe results demonstrate that there were no significant differences between traditional preoperative software planning and MR visualization for guide-pin placement into models of eroded glenoids. A perceived benefit of MR is the real-time intraoperative visibility of the surgical plan and the patient's anatomy; however, this did not translate into decreased procedural time or improved guide-pin position. Level of evidence: Basic Science Study; Biomechanics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.