The humeral head osteotomy during shoulder arthroplasty influences humeral component height, version and possibly neck-shaft angle. These parameters all potentially influence outcomes of anatomic and reverse shoulder replacement to a variable degree. Patient-specific guides and navigation have been studied and utilized clinically for glenoid component placement. Little, however, has been done to evaluate these techniques for humeral head osteotomies. The purpose of this study, therefore, was to evaluate the use of patient-specific guides and surgical navigation for executing a planned humeral head osteotomy.

The DICOM images of 10 shoulder computed tomography scans (5 normal and 5 osteoarthritic) were used to print 3D polylactic models of the humerus. Each model was duplicated, such that there were 2 identical groups of 10 models. After preoperative planning of a humeral head osteotomy, Group 1 underwent osteotomy via a patient-specific guide, while group 2 underwent a real time navigated osteotomy with an optically tracked sagittal saw. The cut height (millimeters), version (degrees) and neck-shaft angle (degrees) were recorded and statistically compared between groups.

There were no statistically significant differences between patient-specific guides and navigation for osteotomy cut height (P = .45) and humeral version (P = .059). Navigation, however, resulted in significantly less neck-shaft angle error than the patient specific guides (P = .023). Subgroup analysis of the osteoarthritic cases showed statistical significance for navigation resulting in less version error than the patient specific guides (P = .048).

No significant differences were found between patient specific guides and navigation for recreation of the preoperatively planned humeral head cut height and version. Neck-shaft angle, however, had significantly less deviation from the preoperative plan when conducted with navigation.

Polls results

On a scale of 1 to 10, rate how much this article will change your clinical practice?

NO change
BIG change
100% Article relates to my practice (2/2)
0% Article does not relate to my practice (0/2)
0% Undecided (0/2)

Will this article lead to more cost-effective healthcare?

50% Yes (1/2)
50% No (1/2)
0% Undecided (0/2)

Was this article biased? (commercial or personal)

0% Yes (0/2)
100% No (2/2)
0% Undecided (0/2)

What level of evidence do you think this article is?

0% Level 1 (0/2)
50% Level 2 (1/2)
0% Level 3 (0/2)
50% Level 4 (1/2)
0% Level 5 (0/2)