Gelişmiş Arama

Basit öğe kaydını göster

dc.contributor.authorKececi, Emin Faruk
dc.contributor.authorSadeghi, Majid Mohammad
dc.contributor.authorKapicioglu, Mehmet
dc.contributor.authorAralasmak, Ayse
dc.contributor.authorTezgel, Okan
dc.contributor.authorBasaran, Murat Alper
dc.contributor.authorYildiz, Fatih
dc.contributor.authorBilsel, Kerem
dc.date.accessioned2022-06-30T13:49:14Z
dc.date.available2022-06-30T13:49:14Z
dc.date.issued2022en_US
dc.identifier.issn1022-5536
dc.identifier.issn2309-4990
dc.identifier.otherWOS:000765352200001
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1177%2F10225536221079432
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12573/1304
dc.description.abstractIntroduction Incorrect positioning is one of the main factors for glenoid component loosening in reverse shoulder arthroplasty and component placement can be challenging. This study aimed to assess whether Patient-Specific Instrumentation (PSI) provides better guide pin positioning accuracy and is superior to standard guided and freehand instrumentation methods in cases of glenoid bone deformity. Materials and Methods Based on the Walch classification, five different scapula types were acquired by computed tomography (CT). For each type, two different surgeons placed a guide pin into the scapula using three different methods: freehand method, conventional non-patient-specific guide, and PSI guide. Each method was repeated five times by both surgeons. In these experiments, a total of 150 samples of scapula models were used (5 x 2 x 3 x 5 = 150). Post-operative CT scans of the samples with the guide pin were digitally assessed and the accuracy of the pin placement was determined by comparison to the preoperative planning on a three-dimensional (3D) model. Results The PSI method showed accuracies to the preoperative plan of 2.68 (SD 2.10) degrees for version angle (p < .05), 2.59 (SD 2.68) degrees for inclination angle (p < .05), and 1.55 (SD 1.26) mm for entry point offset (p < .05). The mean and standard deviation errors compared to planned values of version angle, inclination angle, and entry point offset were statistically significant for the PSI method for the type C defected glenoid and non-arthritic glenoid. Conclusion Using the PSI guide created by an image processing software tool for guide pin positioning showed advantages in glenoid component positioning over other methods, for defected and intact glenoid types, but correlation with clinical outcomes should be examined.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherSAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD1 OLIVERS YARD, 55 CITY ROAD, LONDON EC1Y 1SP, ENGLANDen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.subjectReverse shoulder arthroplastyen_US
dc.subjectpatient-specific guidesen_US
dc.subjectpreoperative planningen_US
dc.subjectguide pin positioningen_US
dc.subjectimage processingen_US
dc.titleThree dimensional patient-specific guides for guide pin positioning in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: An experimental study on different glenoid typesen_US
dc.typearticleen_US
dc.contributor.departmentAGÜ, Mühendislik Fakültesi, Makine Mühendisliği Bölümüen_US
dc.contributor.authorID0000-0001-8654-855Xen_US
dc.contributor.institutionauthorKeçeci, Emin Faruk
dc.identifier.volume30en_US
dc.identifier.issue1en_US
dc.identifier.startpage1en_US
dc.identifier.endpage11en_US
dc.relation.journalJOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERYen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US


Bu öğenin dosyaları:

Thumbnail

Bu öğe aşağıdaki koleksiyon(lar)da görünmektedir.

Basit öğe kaydını göster