Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39474189›Full record

ArticleJSES reviews, reports, and techniques2024

Use of pre-operative 3D planning software for revision shoulder arthroplasty: clinical experience data from a survey in a real-world setting.

Matthias Regling, Brendan M Patterson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JSES reviews, reports, and techniques, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

2 authors.

Matthias ReglingStryker Trauma GmbH, Schönkirchen, Germany.
Brendan M PattersonDepartment of Orthopedics and Rehabilitation, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Preoperative 3D planning is routinely used in primary shoulder arthroplasty, while specific challenges in the revision setting make such approaches more cumbersome and less accessible. Recently, an established preoperative planning software (Blueprint; Stryker, Tornier SAS, Montbonnot-Saint-Martin, France) was expanded to offer a capability for planning of revision and complex primary shoulder arthroplasty cases. The aim of this study was to survey experienced surgeons on their perception of the new software feature for preoperative 3D planning in the setting of revision shoulder arthroplasty. Methods: An observational survey was conducted from January 2022 to October 2022 among orthopedic surgeons performing revision shoulder arthroplasty cases. The survey was part of the Early Product Surveillance program, with the primary goal of obtaining observational data from surgical experience in a real-world setting. A two-staged survey process was applied with separate questionnaires to seek voluntary feedback on the preoperative planning phase as well as on the intraoperative evaluation of the software planning features in revision shoulder arthroplasty. Results: Twenty-five fellowship-trained orthopedic surgeons from the USA and Canada participated in the survey and reported their feedback on 34 revision shoulder arthroplasty cases that were preoperatively planned with the use of Blueprint revision planning software. The surgeons were largely in favor of the revision software planning features and confirmed perceived benefits of its use in the preoperative planning stage of revision shoulder arthroplasty cases. Reported benefits in the preoperative planning phase included increased efficiency and improved ease of creating an appropriate surgical plan as well as increased confidence to execute revision shoulder arthroplasty cases. Surgeons also noted improvements in translation of preoperative planning to intraoperative execution of revision cases, including more appropriate implant selection and improved accuracy of implant placement. Conclusion: The feedback from fellowship-trained shoulder arthroplasty surgeons on the use of the new software feature for preoperative 3D planning of revision shoulder arthroplasty is largely favorable. Further research should be conducted to investigate whether these surgeon-perceived benefits can lead to improved clinical outcomes for patients.

Indexed as

3DComputed tomographyPreoperative planningPreoperative planning softwareReverse shoulder arthroplastyRevision shoulder arthroplastyShoulder arthroplastyTotal shoulder arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID39474189
PMCPMC11514103

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.