Aims:
Patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) in primary shoulder arthroplasty has been studied; results supported the positive impact of the PSI on the glenoid positioning. Nevertheless, no clinical outcomes have been reported. We compare the clinical outcomes of primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty using PSI versus the standard methods.

Methods:
Fifty-three patients with full records and a minimum of 24-months follow-up were reviewed, 35 patients received primary standard RSTA, and 18 patients received primary PSI RSTA. All patients were operated on in a single center. The median follow-up was 46 months (53 months in the standard group vs 39 months in the PSI group).

Results:
There was an overall significant post-operative improvement in the whole cohort (P< 0.05). The standard group had more deformed glenoids (B2, B3, C&D) and significantly low preoperative constant score and forward flexion (P=0.02 & 0.034). Compared to the PSI group (all were A1, A2, B1 &one type D), there were no statistically significant differences in any clinical outcome postoperatively. PSI neither prolonged the waiting time to surgery (P=0.693) nor the intraoperative time (P=0.962). Radiologically, PSI secured a higher percentage of optimum baseplate position and screw anchorage; however, no statistical correlation was found.

Conclusion:
In this series, both groups achieved comparable good outcomes. PSI did not achieve significantly better clinical outcomes than Standard after primary RSTA. Yet comparison has some limitations. PSI did not negatively impact the waiting time or the surgical time.





Polls results
1

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 (1/1)
0% Article does not relate to my practice (0/1)
0% Undecided (0/1)
2

Will this article lead to more cost-effective healthcare?

0% Yes (0/1)
100% No (1/1)
0% Undecided (0/1)
3

Was this article biased? (commercial or personal)

0% Yes (0/1)
0% No (0/1)
100% Undecided (1/1)
4

What level of evidence do you think this article is?

0% Level 1 (0/1)
0% Level 2 (0/1)
100% Level 3 (1/1)
0% Level 4 (0/1)
0% Level 5 (0/1)