ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2026
Validation of a 3D planning tool for glenoid bone loss evaluation in revision anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurate preoperative assessment of glenoid bone loss is critical in revision shoulder arthroplasty. The aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability of the Blueprint Revision 3D-CT planning software (Stryker, Kalamazoo, MI, USA) by comparing preoperative reconstructions with intraoperative findings. Agreement between preoperative and intraoperative assessments was analyzed for glenoid containment status, comparing 2D-CT and 3D reconstructed images derived from CT imaging (3D-CT) with intraoperative findings.
methodsForty-seven patients undergoing revision of the same stemless anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty with a cemented polyethylene glenoid component were included in this analysis. Glenoid bone defects were classified using the established systems according to Antuña and Williams-Iannotti. Defect containment (contained vs. uncontained) was assessed preoperatively using 3D-CT and 2D-CT imaging and compared with intraoperative findings. Agreement between different imaging methods was evaluated using Cohen's kappa coefficient (κ).
resultsThe most common indication for revision was glenoid loosening (79%), with a mean time to revision of 7 ± 3 years. Intraoperative evaluation classified 68.1% of glenoid defects as contained, which was correctly depicted in 80.9% of 3D-CT and 65.9% of 2D-CT. Agreement between 3D-CT and intraoperative findings was moderate (κ = 0.58, 80.9%) and outperformed 2D-CT (κ = 0.37, 65.9%). Agreement between 3D-CT and 2D-CT was also moderate (κ = 0.48, 72.3%).
conclusion3D-CT-based preoperative planning using Blueprint Revision demonstrates higher agreement with intraoperative findings compared to traditional 2D imaging. These findings support the value of advanced 3D planning tools in evaluating glenoid containment and guiding surgical decision-making in revision shoulder arthroplasty.
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.