An in vitro comparison of mixed-reality navigation to traditional freehand and patient-specific instrumentation techniques for glenoid guide pin insertion during shoulder arthroplasty

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

BackgroundAccurate insertion of the glenoid guide pin in shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is important for obtaining optimized glenoid component position and orientation. The objective of this study was to evaluate and compare the accuracy of three glenoid guide pin insertion techniques: 1) traditional software planning using freehand guide pin insertion (freehand), 2) guide pin insertion utilizing patient-specific instrumentation (PSI), and 3) using a mixed reality navigation (MR-NAV) system. MethodsTwenty (20) computer tomography (CT) scans were obtained from patients exhibiting glenoid erosion patterns according to the Walch and Favard classifications. Cases were planned using validated three-dimensional (3D) preoperative planning software. The CT data was then used to 3D print triplicate plastic models of each glenoid to evaluate the three guide pin insertion techniques. The first technique employed traditional software planning with freehand guide pin insertion. The second method used preoperatively planned PSI guides, while the third utilized a MR-NAV system, which provided real-time holographic guidance during guide pin insertion. Once all guide pins had been inserted into the models, an independent optical tracking system and custom digitization device was used to quantify the position and orientation of each guide pin relative to the glenoid. The outcomes for this study included the absolute mean error in guide pin inclination, version, and entry point relative to the preoperative plan. The absolute Total Global Error was also assessed, which was defined as the sum of the absolute guide pin orientation and position error relative to the preoperative plan. ResultsNo statistically significant differences between MR-NAV and PSI were found for the inclination error (2±1° versus 2±1°; P=0.056), version error (1±1° versus 1±1°; P=1.000), and Total Global Error (5±1 [mm+deg] versus 5±1 [mm+deg], P=1.000), respectively. The freehand technique produced significantly greater error than MR-NAV and PSI for inclination (5±3°, P≤0.017), version (4±3°, P≤0.032) and Total Global Error (8±3 [mm+deg], P<0.001). No statistically significant differences in the entry point error were observed between all guide pin insertion methods (P≥0.058). DiscussionThese results demonstrate that the precision and accuracy of MR-NAV is comparable to PSI and superior to a freehand technique for glenoid guide pin insertion in-vitro. Further study is needed to compare the accuracy of these techniques intra-operatively, in addition to assessing a potential learning curve between surgeons of varying experience with the MR-NAV system.