ArticleJSES international2026
Variability in preoperative planning software for shoulder arthroplasty.
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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Three-dimensional preoperative planning is increasingly used in shoulder arthroplasty to optimize implant selection and component positioning. Planning platforms rely on either automated best-fit sphere algorithms or manual landmark-based methods to characterize glenoid morphology, potentially introducing variability. This study aimed to compare 5 commercially available planning platforms and to determine whether differences in analytical algorithms explain intersoftware variability. Methods: Thirty-three patients were included. Preoperative computed tomography scans were analyzed using Blueprint system (Stryker, Kalamazoo, MI, USA), Equinoxe Planning App (Exactech, Gainesville, FL, USA), Signature ONE Surgical Planning System (Zimmer Biomet, Warsaw, IN, USA), MyShoulder system (Medacta, Castel San Pietro, Switzerland), and LimaCorporate Pre-Op Planning Software (LimaCorporate/Enovis, San Daniele del Friuli, Udine, Italy). Glenoid version, inclination, and humeral head subluxation were assessed. Data analysis included a group evaluation for each variable and pairwise comparisons between software. A comparative analysis between automated and manual assessment methods was performed. Results: Significant differences were found between platforms for version ( Conclusion: Significant variability exists between preoperative planning software, particularly for inclination. Automated software demonstrated the highest concordance for version but the lowest concordance for subluxation. These results suggest that, even with similar analytical algorithms, uniformity between software is lacking, potentially impacting surgical planning. Methodological standardization is essential to improve reliability and reproducibility of shoulder arthroplasty planning. Surgeons should consider this variability when planning shoulder arthroplasty and interpreting studies with different planning platforms.
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.