Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Individualisierte Schulterendoprothetik: aktueller Stand der Entwicklung

Individualized shoulder arthroplasty: the current state of development

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
Der Orthopäde Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3
Abb. 4
Abb. 5

Abbreviations

DRG:

Diagnosis Related Groups

PSI :

Patientenspezifische Instrumente

TEP :

Totalendoprothese

Literatur

  1. Baauw M, Van Hellemondt GG, Van Hooff ML et al (2015) The accuracy of positioning of a custom-made implant within a large acetabular defect at revision arthroplasty of the hip. Bone Joint J 97-b:780–785

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Bercik MJ, Kruse K 2nd, Yalizis M et al (2016) A modification to the Walch classification of the glenoid in primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis using three-dimensional imaging. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 25:1601–1606

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Boileau P (2016) Complications and revision of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 102:S33–S43

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Cabarcas BC, Cvetanovich GL, Espinoza-Orias AA et al (2019) Novel 3‑dimensionally printed patient-specific guide improves accuracy compared with standard total shoulder arthroplasty guide: a cadaveric study. JSES Open Access 3:83–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Cabarcas BC, Cvetanovich GL, Gowd AK et al (2019) Accuracy of patient-specific instrumentation in shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JSES Open Access 3:117–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Chin PY, Sperling JW, Cofield RH et al (2006) Complications of total shoulder arthroplasty: are they fewer or different? J Shoulder Elbow Surg 15:19–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Dallalana RJ, Mcmahon RA, East B et al (2016) Accuracy of patient-specific instrumentation in anatomic and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. Int J Shoulder Surg 10:59–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Denard PJ, Walch G (2013) Current concepts in the surgical management of primary glenohumeral arthritis with a biconcave glenoid. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 22:1589–1598

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Eraly K, Stoffelen D, Vander Sloten J et al (2016) A patient-specific guide for optimizing custom-made glenoid implantation in cases of severe glenoid defects: an in vitro study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 25:837–845

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Farron A, Terrier A, Buchler P (2006) Risks of loosening of a prosthetic glenoid implanted in retroversion. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 15:521–526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ferrara F, Cipriani A, Magarelli N et al (2015) Implant positioning in TKA: comparison between conventional and patient-specific instrumentation. Orthopedics 38:e271–e280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Friedman RJ, Hawthorne KB, Genez BM (1992) The use of computerized tomography in the measurement of glenoid version. J Bone Joint Surg Am 74:1032–1037

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Gauci MO, Boileau P, Baba M et al (2016) Patient-specific glenoid guides provide accuracy and reproducibility in total shoulder arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 98-b:1080–1085

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Gauci MO, Cavalier M, Gonzalez JF et al (2019) Revision of failed shoulder arthroplasty: epidemiology, etiology, and surgical options. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2019.07.034

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Gohlke F, Werner B, Wiese I (2019) Glenoid reconstruction in revision shoulder arthroplasty. Oper Orthop Traumatol 31:98–114

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Haglin JM, Eltorai AE, Gil JA et al (2016) Patient-specific orthopaedic implants. Orthop Surg 8:417–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Heylen S, Van Haver A, Vuylsteke K et al (2016) Patient-specific instrument guidance of glenoid component implantation reduces inclination variability in total and reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 25:186–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ho JC, Sabesan VJ, Iannotti JP (2013) Glenoid component retroversion is associated with osteolysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 95:e82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hu H, Liu W, Zeng Q et al (2019) The personalized shoulder reconstruction assisted by 3D printing technology after resection of the proximal humerus tumours. Cancer Manag Res 11:10665–10673

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Iannotti JP, Walker K, Rodriguez E et al (2019) Accuracy of 3‑dimensional planning, implant templating, and patient-specific instrumentation in anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 101:446–457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Iannotti JP, Weiner S, Rodriguez E et al (2015) Three-dimensional imaging and templating improve glenoid implant positioning. J Bone Joint Surg Am 97:651–658

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Levy JC, Everding NG, Frankle MA et al (2014) Accuracy of patient-specific guided glenoid baseplate positioning for reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 23:1563–1567

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Lima DJL, Markel J, Yawman JP et al (2019) 3D preoperative planning for humeral head selection in total shoulder arthroplasty. Musculoskelet Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12306-019-00602-5

  24. Mizuno N, Denard PJ, Raiss P et al (2013) Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis in patients with a biconcave glenoid. J Bone Joint Surg Am 95:1297–1304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Moineau G, Levigne C, Boileau P et al (2012) Three-dimensional measurement method of arthritic glenoid cavity morphology: feasibility and reproducibility. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 98:S139–S145

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Rolf O (2020) 3D-printed patient specific implant for glenoid reconstruction in revision shoulder arthroplasty. Submitted

  27. Schwarzkopf R, Brodsky M, Garcia GA et al (2015) Surgical and functional outcomes in patients undergoing total knee replacement with patient-specific implants compared with “off-the-shelf” implants. Orthop J Sports Med 3:2325967115590379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Schwarzkopf R, Schnaser E, Nozaki T et al (2016) Novel, patient-specific instruments for acetabular preparation and cup placement. Surg Technol Int 29:309–313

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Sperling JW, Hawkins RJ, Walch G et al (2013) Complications in total shoulder arthroplasty. Instr Course Lect 62:135–141

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Throckmorton TW, Gulotta LV, Bonnarens FO et al (2015) Patient-specific targeting guides compared with traditional instrumentation for glenoid component placement in shoulder arthroplasty: a multi-surgeon study in 70 arthritic cadaver specimens. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 24:965–971

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Trouilloud P, Gonzalvez M, Martz P et al (2014) Duocentric(R) reversed shoulder prosthesis and Personal Fit(R) templates: innovative strategies to optimize prosthesis positioning and prevent scapular notching. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 24:483–495

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Walch G, Moraga C, Young A et al (2012) Results of anatomic nonconstrained prosthesis in primary osteoarthritis with biconcave glenoid. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 21:1526–1533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Walch G, Vezeridis PS, Boileau P et al (2015) Three-dimensional planning and use of patient-specific guides improve glenoid component position: an in vitro study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 24:302–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Werner BS, Hudek R, Burkhart KJ et al (2017) The influence of three-dimensional planning on decision-making in total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2017.01.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Zou Y, Yang Y, Han Q et al (2018) Novel exploration of customized 3D printed shoulder prosthesis in revision of total shoulder arthroplasty: a case report. Medicine 97:e13282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Zumstein MA, Pinedo M, Old J et al (2011) Problems, complications, reoperations, and revisions in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 20:146–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Klinik für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie, Niels-Stensen-Kliniken, Franziskus-Hospital Harderberg, Akademisches Lehrkrankenhaus der Westfälischen Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Alte Rothenfelder Straße 23, 49124, Georgsmarienhütte, Deutschland

    Olaf Rolf

  2. Department Sportorthopädie/Sporttraumatologie Obere Extremität/Schulterendoprothetik/Kernspintomographie (MRT), Sportklinik Stuttgart GmbH, Stuttgart, Deutschland

    Frieder Mauch

Authors
  1. Olaf Rolf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Frieder Mauch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Olaf Rolf.

Ethics declarations

Interessenkonflikt

O. Rolf und F. Mauch geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Für diesen Beitrag wurden von den Autoren keine Studien an Menschen oder Tieren durchgeführt. Für die aufgeführten Studien gelten die jeweils dort angegebenen ethischen Richtlinien.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rolf, O., Mauch, F. Individualisierte Schulterendoprothetik: aktueller Stand der Entwicklung. Orthopäde 49, 424–431 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00132-020-03910-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00132-020-03910-y

Search

Navigation