ArticleJournal of shoulder and elbow arthroplasty2026
Utility of extended reality in shoulder arthroplasty: a meta-analysis of training efficiency and glenoid guidewire accuracy.
Article in Journal of shoulder and elbow arthroplasty, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Extended reality (XR) has seen increased usage in shoulder arthroplasty for both intraoperative guidance and surgical training, but its impact on technical accuracy and performance has not been quantified across studies. The objective of this analysis was to determine the impact of XR on educational efficiency and glenoid guidewire placement error. Two separate meta-analyses of randomized or quasi-experimental studies were performed. Methods: Based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses search guidelines, 24 studies were identified in XR-based shoulder surgery education. After applying inclusion, 3 studies involving 55 participants were meta-analyzed. Using the same Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, 35 studies were identified in XR-guided shoulder arthroplasty. After applying inclusion criteria, 7 studies involving 349 guidewire placements were meta-analyzed. Results: In the surgical education studies, XR-trained participants completed procedures faster than controls, but OSAT (Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills) scores did not significantly differ. Across the glenoid guidewire studies, XR guidance reduced version error and inclination error versus freehand, but entry point error was not significantly different between XR-guided procedures and freehand. Conclusion: XR-based tools appear to offer meaningful benefits for shoulder arthroplasty, but their impact may be domain-specific. XR education may substantially improve operative efficiency, while XR guidance may enhance the angular accuracy of glenoid guidewire placement without clearly changing entry point error.
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.