Fong Francis Jia Yi, Onggo Jason Derry, Yam Michael Gui Jie
Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, 10 Medical Drive, 7 Singapore, 117597, Singapore.
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, National Health Group, 11 Jln Tan Tock Seng, 308433, Singapore.
J Orthop. 2025 Mar 25;62:139-147. doi: 10.1016/j.jor.2025.03.044. eCollection 2025 Apr.
This study evaluates the effectiveness of patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) versus conventional instrumentation (CI) in shoulder arthroplasties. Accurate glenoid component placement is crucial for successful shoulder replacements, and PSI offers the potential to improve this accuracy.
Electronic database search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane was performed on April 10, 2024, in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines for scoping reviews. The searches were conducted using the keywords relating to "shoulder arthroplasty" and "three-dimensional printing". No restrictions were placed on the date of publication.
10 clinical studies involving 4092 patients, comparing PSI and CI were included. The results show that PSI generally improves radiological outcomes, with lower anterior-posterior offset errors, longer screw lengths, and near statistically significant reductions in version, inclination, and superior-inferior offset errors. However, there was no significant difference between PSI and CI in terms of operative duration, complication rates, or short-term patient-reported outcomes such as the Constant Murley Score.
While PSI did not significantly reduce short-term complications or alter patient-reported outcomes, it demonstrated a promising potential to enhance glenoid component positioning. Accurate placement of the glenoid component is crucial for long-term success, and PSI may reduce postoperative complications such as glenoid loosening. However, the lack of long-term follow-up in most studies limits the ability to fully assess these benefits.The study also highlights the variability in PSI design and calls for standardized protocols to improve data consistency and accuracy.Longer follow-up studies are recommended to better assess the impact of PSI on long-term outcomes. In conclusion, PSI may improve radiological outcomes without increasing surgical complexity, representing a promising alternative to CI in shoulder arthroplasty.
II.
本研究评估了个性化器械(PSI)与传统器械(CI)在肩关节置换术中的有效性。准确放置关节盂组件对于成功进行肩关节置换至关重要,而PSI有望提高这种准确性。
于2024年4月10日,按照系统评价和Meta分析的首选报告项目(PRISMA)范围综述指南,对PubMed、Embase、Scopus、Web of Science和Cochrane电子数据库进行检索。检索使用了与“肩关节置换术”和“三维打印”相关的关键词。对发表日期无限制。
纳入了10项涉及4092例患者的临床研究,比较了PSI和CI。结果表明,PSI通常能改善影像学结果,具有更低的前后偏移误差、更长的螺钉长度,并且在旋转、倾斜和上下偏移误差方面接近具有统计学意义的降低。然而,在手术持续时间、并发症发生率或短期患者报告结局(如Constant Murley评分)方面,PSI和CI之间没有显著差异。
虽然PSI并未显著降低短期并发症或改变患者报告的结局,但它显示出增强关节盂组件定位的潜在前景。准确放置关节盂组件对于长期成功至关重要,并且PSI可能会减少诸如关节盂松动等术后并发症。然而,大多数研究缺乏长期随访,限制了全面评估这些益处的能力。该研究还强调了PSI设计的变异性,并呼吁制定标准化方案以提高数据的一致性和准确性。建议进行更长时间的随访研究,以更好地评估PSI对长期结局的影响。总之,PSI可能在不增加手术复杂性的情况下改善影像学结果,是肩关节置换术中CI的一个有前景的替代方案。
II级