Read more

July 11, 2023
1 min read
Save

CT scans, patient-specific instruments may not improve results after shoulder arthroplasty

You've successfully added to your alerts. You will receive an email when new content is published.

Click Here to Manage Email Alerts

We were unable to process your request. Please try again later. If you continue to have this issue please contact customerservice@slackinc.com.

Key takeaways:

  • Preoperative planning technology, such as CT scans and patient-specific instrumentation, did not improve outcomes of shoulder arthroplasty.
  • The study showed no clinical benefit of these innovations.

Use of preoperative planning, such as CT scans, 3D planning and patient-specific instrumentation, prior to shoulder arthroplasty did not reduce the risk of aseptic revision, according to published results.

Researchers from the medical device surveillance and assessment group at Kaiser Permanente in San Diego performed a retrospective cohort study of 8,117 anatomic or reverse total shoulder arthroplasty procedures in 7,372 patients from 2015 to 2020.

Shoulder pain
Preoperative planning technology did not improve outcomes of shoulder arthroplasty. Image: Adobe Stock

Researchers compared aseptic revision and 90-day complications among patients who received preoperative planning technology, such as CT scans, 3D-planning technology and patient-specific instrumentation (PSI), and patients who did not receive preoperative planning technology. Average follow-up among the cohorts was 2.9 years.

According to the study, patients who received preoperative CT scans or PSI had no reduction in risk for aseptic revision compared with patients who did not receive preoperative planning technology.

Researchers also noted patients who received CT scans had a decreased risk for 90-day ED visits and an increased risk for 90-day venous thromboembolic events. Patients who received PSI had an increased risk for 90-day deep infection, investigators noted.

“The orthopedic community is eager for new technologies to be validated by patient-reported outcomes,” the researchers wrote in the study. “It remains to be seen whether clinical benefit of these innovations will be realized and whether their use is justified in view of their cost in money and time,” researchers wrote.