DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Mixed reality visualization in shoulder arthroplasty: is it better than traditional preoperative planning software?

  • Sejla Abdic (The Roth McFarlane Hand and Upper Limb Centre, St. Joseph's Hospital) ;
  • Nicholas J. Van Osch (The Roth McFarlane Hand and Upper Limb Centre, St. Joseph's Hospital) ;
  • Daniel G. Langohr (The Roth McFarlane Hand and Upper Limb Centre, St. Joseph's Hospital) ;
  • James A. Johnson (The Roth McFarlane Hand and Upper Limb Centre, St. Joseph's Hospital) ;
  • George S. Athwal (The Roth McFarlane Hand and Upper Limb Centre, St. Joseph's Hospital)
  • Received : 2022.10.24
  • Accepted : 2023.01.25
  • Published : 2023.06.01

Abstract

Background: Preoperative traditional software planning (TSP) is a method used to assist surgeons with implant selection and glenoid guide-pin insertion in shoulder arthroplasty. Mixed reality (MR) is a new technology that uses digital holograms of the preoperative plan and guide-pin trajectory projected into the operative field. The purpose of this study was to compare TSP to MR in a simulated surgical environment involving insertion of guide-pins into models of severely deformed glenoids. Methods: Eight surgeons inserted guide-pins into eight randomized three-dimensional-printed severely eroded glenoid models in a simulated surgical environment using either TSP or MR. In total, 128 glenoid models were used and statistically compared. The outcomes compared between techniques included procedural time, difference in guide-pin start point, difference in version and inclination, and surgeon confidence via a confidence rating scale. Results: When comparing traditional preoperative software planning to MR visualization as techniques to assist surgeons in glenoid guide pin insertion, there were no statistically significant differences in terms of mean procedure time (P=0.634), glenoid start-point (TSP=2.2±0.2 mm, MR=2.1±0.1 mm; P=0.760), guide-pin orientation (P=0.586), or confidence rating score (P=0.850). Conclusions: The results demonstrate that there were no significant differences between traditional preoperative software planning and MR visualization for guide-pin placement into models of eroded glenoids. A perceived benefit of MR is the real-time intraoperative visibility of the surgical plan and the patient's anatomy; however, this did not translate into decreased procedural time or improved guide-pin position.

Keywords

References

  1. Beckmann J, Stengel D, Tingart M, Gotz J, Grifka J, Luring C. Navigated cup implantation in hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop 2009;80:538-44. https://doi.org/10.3109/17453670903350073
  2. Hernandez D, Garimella R, Eltorai AE, Daniels AH. Computer-assisted orthopaedic surgery. Orthop Surg 2017;9:152-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/os.12323
  3. Saragaglia D, Rubens-Duval B, Gaillot J, Lateur G, Pailhe R. Total knee arthroplasties from the origin to navigation: history, rationale, indications. Int Orthop 2019;43:597-604. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-3913-z
  4. Azuma RT. A survey of augmented reality. Presence Teleoper Virtual Environ 1997;6:355-85. https://doi.org/10.1162/pres.1997.6.4.355
  5. Gregory TM, Gregory J, Sledge J, Allard R, Mir O. Surgery guided by mixed reality: presentation of a proof of concept. Acta Orthop 2018;89:480-3. https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2018.1506974
  6. Kriechling P, Roner S, Liebmann F, Casari F, Furnstahl P, Wieser K. Augmented reality for base plate component placement in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a feasibility study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2021;141:1447-53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-020-03542-z
  7. Rodriguez JA, Entezari V, Iannotti JP, Ricchetti ET. Pre-operative planning for reverse shoulder replacement: the surgical benefits and their clinical translation. Ann Joint 2019;4:4.
  8. Levigne C, Boileau P, Favard L, et al. Scapular notching in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2008;17:925-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2008.02.010
  9. Walch G, Badet R, Boulahia A, Khoury A. Morphologic study of the glenoid in primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis. J Arthroplasty 1999;14:756-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-5403(99)90232-2
  10. Dandavino M, Young M, Gosselin R, Snell L, Bhanji F. Development and validation of a self-efficacy scale for clinical decision-making in general paediatrics. Paediatr Child Health 2013;18:184-8. https://doi.org/10.1093/pch/18.4.184
  11. Katz S, Feigenbaum A, Pasternak S, Vinker S. An interactive course to enhance self-efficacy of family practitioners to treat obesity. BMC Med Educ 2005;5:4.
  12. Mason S, Ellershaw J. Assessing undergraduate palliative care education: validity and reliability of two scales examining perceived efficacy and outcome expectancies in palliative care. Med Educ 2004;38:1103-10. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.01960.x
  13. Ohl X, Lagace PY, Billuart F, Gagey O, Skalli W, Hagemeister N. Robustness and reproducibility of a glenoid-centered scapular coordinate system derived from low-dose stereoradiography analysis. J Appl Biomech 2015;31:56-61. https://doi.org/10.1123/JAB.2013-0310
  14. Iannotti JP, Walker K, Rodriguez E, Patterson TE, Jun BJ, Ricchetti ET. Accuracy of 3-dimensional planning, implant templating, and patient-specific instrumentation in anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2019;101:446-57. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.17.01614