ArticleJSES international2026
Glenoid component implantation accuracy using a novel handheld computer targeting system in total shoulder arthroplasty: a cadaveric study.
Article in JSES international, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The importance of glenoid component positioning in total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) is increasingly being recognized. Several technologies have been developed to help surgeons accurately replicate their pre-operative plan; however, adoption of these technologies is limited by cost, implant specificity, lack of intraoperative flexibility, and added operating room time. Herein, we evaluate the accuracy of a novel, implant-agnostic, reusable handheld computer targeting system that assists surgeons in placing a central K-wire during TSA using an Methods: A cadaveric study was performed wherein 11 matched pairs of fresh-frozen upper torsos (22 shoulders) underwent either anatomic or reverse TSA by 1 of 4 fellowship-trained surgeons. After pre-operative planning and a standard deltopectoral approach, surgeons registered the Computerized Operating Room Experience (CORE) Shoulder system (LinkBio Corp, NJ, USA) to the patients' glenoid. Surgeons then used the wireless handheld device to place the K-wire guided by on-screen targeting cues. Custom anatomic and reverse TSA glenoid test components with metal trackers were subsequently implanted with the retained K-wire, and specimens underwent computed tomography scanning to enable digital comparison to the pre-operative plan. Per convention, a component was considered malpositioned when version or inclination errors exceeded 10° or component displacement exceeded 4 mm. Time from the start of CORE Shoulder glenoid registration to K-wire drilling was calculated from video recordings. Results: K-wires were accurately positioned in 91% of cases. The mean displacement from the pre-operative plan was 2.1 ± 1.1 mm, and the mean version and inclination errors were 2.2 ± 1.4° and 4.3 ± 4.1°, respectively. Glenoid components were accurately positioned in 95% of cases. The mean displacement from the pre-operative plan was 1.9 ± 1.0 mm, and the mean version and inclination errors were 2.5 ± 1.9° and 3.9 ± 3.1°, respectively. The mean intraoperative time from registration to start of K-wire drilling was 79 ± 24 seconds (range, 44 seconds to 126 seconds). In 95% of cases, registration of the CORE Shoulder device and drilling took less than 2 minutes. Conclusion: Use of a novel, implant-agnostic, reusable handheld computer targeting system to guide K-wire drilling during
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.