Introduction. The degree of glenoid bone loss associated with primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis can influence the type of glenoid implant selected and its placement in total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). The literature has demonstrated inaccurate glenoid component placement when using standard instruments and two-dimensional (2D) imaging without templating, particularly as the degree of glenoid deformity or bone loss worsens. Published results have demonstrated improved accuracy of implant placement when using three-dimensional (3D) computed tomography (CT) imaging with implant templating and patient specific instrumentation (PSI). Accurate placement of the glenoid component in TSA is expected to decrease component malposition and better correct pathologic deformity in order to decrease the risk of component loosening and failure over time. Different types of PSI have been described. Some PSI use 3D printed single use disposable instrumentation, while others use adjustable and reusable-patient specific instrumentation (R-PSI). However, no studies have directly compared the accuracy of different types of PSI in shoulder arthroplasty. We combined our clinical experience and compare the accuracy of glenoid implant placement with five different types of instrumentation when using 3D CT imaging, preoperative planning and implant templating in a series of 173 patients undergoing primary TSA. Our hypothesis was that all PSI technologies would demonstrate equivalent accuracy of implant placement and that PSI would show the most benefit with more severe glenoid deformity. Discussion and Conclusions. We demonstrated no consistent differences in accuracy of 3D CT preoperative planning and templating with any type of PSI used. In Groups 1 and 2, standard instrumentation was used in a patient specific manner defined by the software and in Groups 3, 4, and 5 a patient specific instrument was used. In all groups, the two surgeons were very experienced with use of the 3D CT preoperative planning and templating software and all of the instrumentation prior to starting this study, as well as very experienced with shoulder arthroplasty. This is a strength of the study when defining the efficacy of the technology, but limits the generalizability of the findings when considering the effectiveness of the technology with surgeons that may not have as much experience with shoulder arthroplasty and/or the PSI technology. Conversely, it could be postulated that greater improvements in accuracy may be seen with the studied PSI technology, when compared to no 3D planning or PSI, with less experienced surgeons. There could also be differences between the PSI technologies when used by less experienced surgeons, either across all cases or based upon the severity of pathology. When the surgeon is part of the method, the effectiveness of the technology is equally dependent upon the surgeon using the technology. A broader study using different surgeons is required to test the effectiveness of this technology. Comparing the results of this study with published results in the literature, 3D CT imaging and implant templating with use of PSI results in more accurate placement of the glenoid implant when compared to 2D CT imaging without templating and use of standard instrumentation. In previous studies, this was most evident in patients with more severe bone deformity. We believe that 3D CT planning and templating provides the most value in defining the glenoid pathology, as well as in the selection of the optimal implant and its placement. However, it should be the judgment of the surgeon, based upon their experience, to select the instrumentation to best achieve the desired result

Assessing glenoid version is important for a successful total shoulder arthroplasty. Glenoid version is defined as the orientation of the glenoid cavity in relation to a plane perpendicular to the scapula body. Glenoid revision averages between 1 to 2 degrees of retroversion and varies between race and sex. In general glenoid retroversion is overestimated by 6.5 degrees on plain radiographs. Furthermore standard axial 2D CT is aligned to the patient's body and not aligned to the scapula. Therefore 3D reconstructions generated from standard CT allows for analysis of the scapula as a free body and correct version measurements can be made unaffected by positioning. If you add a computer modeling coordinate system in which implants can be added, then computer simulation surgery can be performed. This is important because implanting a glenoid component in excessive retroversion leads to increased stress at the glenoid component and cement mantle and decreased contact with the humeral component. Also excessive reaming of the glenoid surface to neutral retroversion can lead to excessive bone loss and penetration of the glenoid vault by either the pegs or the keel of the glenoid component

Background. Humeral version is the twist angle of the humeral head relative to the distal humerus. Pre-operatively, it is most commonly measured referencing the transepicondylar axis, although various techniques are described in literature (Matsumura et al. 2014, Edelson 1999, Boileau et al., 2008). Accurate estimation of the version angle is important for humeral head osteotomy in preparation for shoulder arthroplasty, as deviations from native version can result in prosthesis malalignment. Most humeral head osteotomy guides instruct the surgeon to reference the ulnar axis with the elbow flexed at 90°. Average version values have been reported at 17.6° relative to the transepicondylar axis and 28.8° relative to the ulnar axis (Hernigou, Duparc, and Hernigou 2014), although it is highly variable and has been reported to range from 10° to 55° (Pearl and Volk 1999). These studies used 2D CT images; however, 2D has been shown to be unreliable for many glenohumeral measurements (Terrier 2015, Jacxsens 2015, Budge 2011). Three-dimensional (3D) modeling is now widely available and may improve the accuracy of version measurements. This study evaluated the effects of sex and measurement system on 3D version measurements made using the transepicondylar and ulnar axis methods, and additionally a flexion-extension axis commonly used in biomechanics. Methods. Computed tomography (CT) scans of 51 cadaveric shoulders (26 male, 25 female; 32 left) were converted to 3D models using medical imaging software. The ulna was reduced to 90° flexion to replicate the arm position during intra-operative version measurement. Geometry was extracted to determine landmarks and co-ordinate systems for the humeral long axis, epicondylar axis, flexion-extension axis (centered through the capitellum and trochlear groove), and ulnar long axis. An anatomic humeral head cut plane was placed at the head-neck junction of all shoulders by a fellowship trained shoulder surgeon. Retroversion was measured with custom Matlab code that analysed the humeral head cut plane relative to a reference system based on the long axis of the humerus and each elbow axis. Effects of measurement systems were analyzed using separate 1-way RM ANOVAs for males and females. Sex differences were analyzed using unpaired t-tests for each measurement system. Results. Changing the measurement reference significantly affected version (p<0.001). The ulnar axis method consistently resulted in higher measured version than either flexion-extension axis (males 9±1°, females 14±1°, p<0.001) or epicondylar axis (males 8±1°, females 12±1°, p<0.001). See Figure 1. Version in males (38±11°) was 7° greater than females (31±12°) when referencing the flexion-extension axis (p=0.048). Conclusion. Different measurement systems produce different values of version. This is important for humeral osteotomies; if version is assessed using the epicondyles pre-operatively and subsequently by the ulna intra-operatively, then the osteotomy will be approximately 10° over-retroverted. For any figures or tables, please contact authors directly (see Info & Metrics tab above).

Background. Dislocation is a common complication after proximal and total femur prosthesis reconstruction for primary bone sarcoma patients. Expandable prosthesis in children puts an additional challenge due to the lengthening process. Hip stability is impaired due to multiple factors: Resection of the hip stabilizers as part of the sarcoma resection: forces acts on the hip during the lengthening; and mismatch of native growing acetabulum to the metal femoral head. Surgical solutions described in literature are various with reported low rates of success. Objective. Assess a novel 3D surgical planning technology by use of 3D models (computerized and physical), 3D planning, and Patient Specific Instruments (PSI) in supporting correction of young children suffering from hip instability after expandable prosthesis reconstruction following proximal femur resection. This innovative technology creates a new dimension of visualization and customization, and could improve understanding of this complex problem and facilitate the surgical decision making and procedure. Method. Two children, both patients with Ewing Sarcoma of the left proximal femur stage-IIB, ages 3/5 years at diagnosis, were treated with conventional chemotherapy followed by proximal femur resection. Both were reconstructed with expandable prosthesis (one at resection and other 4 years after resection). Hip migration developed gradually during lengthening process in the 24m follow up period. 3D software (Mimics, Materialise, Belgium) were used to make computerized 3D models of patients' pelvises. These were used to 3D print 1:1 physical models. Custom 3D planning software (MSk Lab, Imperial College London) allowed surgeons visualizing the anatomical status and assess of problem severity. Thereafter, osteotomies planes and the desired position of acetabular roof after reduction of hip joint were planned by the surgeons. These plans were used to generate 3D printed PSIs to guide the osteotomies during shelf and triple osteotomy surgeries. Accuracy of planning and PSIs were verified with fluoroscopy and post-op X-rays, by comparing cutting planes and post-op position of the acetabulum. Results. Surgeons reported excellent experience with the 3D models (computerized and physical). It helped them in the decision process with an improved understanding of the relationship between prosthesis head and acetabulum, a clear view of the osteophytes and bone formation surrounding the pseudoacetabulum, and osteophytes inside the native acetabulum. These osteophytes were not immediately visible on 2D CT imaging slices. Surgeons reported a good fit and PSIs' simplicity of use. The hip stability was satisfactory during surgery and in the immediate post-op period. X-ray showed a good and centered position of the hip and good levels of the osteotomies. Conclusions. 3D surgical planning and 3D printing was found to be very effective in assisting surgeons facing complex problems. In these particular cases neither CT nor MRI were able to visualize all bony formation and entrapment of prosthesis in the pseudoacetabulum. 3D visualisation can be very helpful for surgical treatment decisions, and by planning and executing surgery with the guidance of PSIs, surgeons can improve their surgical results. We believe that 3D technology and its advantages, can improve success rates of hip stability in this unique cohort of patients

Objective. The aim of the study was to evaluate inter observer reliability and intra observer reproducibility between the three column classification using 3D CT reconstruction models and schatzker classification systems using 2D CT models. Materials and methods. Fifty two consecutive patients with tibial plateau fractures were evaluated by two orthopaedic surgeons. All patients were classified into Schatzker and three column classification systems using CTimages. The Images were evaluated in a randomised and blind fashion. Demographics of the patient were blinded to reduce observer bias. The inter observer reliability was measured for both classfications in round one. In round two the process was repeated after two weeks and the intra observer reproducibility was measured using cohen kappa coefficient and level of agreement based on Landis and Koch. Results. The average inter observer reliability for schatzker classification in round one were (k2D=0.661, 95% CI 0.531–0.697) in round two (k2D = 0.673, 95% CI 0.451–0.774). The three column classification average in round one were (k3D=0.851 95% CI 0.705–0.968), in round two (k3D=0.929 95% CI 0.813–1.00). The average intra observer reproducibility for Schatzker classification in round two for the first obsrever were (k2D=0.689 IQR, 0.6–0.846) for observer two (k2D=0.656 IQR 0.2988–1.0). The average intra observer reproducibility for three column for observer one were (k3D=0.693 IQR, 0.484-.859), for observer two (k3D=0.711 IQR, 0.5185–0.8294). 31 % of patients had a posterior column involvement. Conclusion. Statistically significant inter observer values in both rounds were noted with the three column classification making it, statistically an excellent agreement. The intra observer reproducibility for the three column classification improved as compared to the schatzker classification. The three column classification seems to be effective way to characterise and classify fractures of tibial plateau