Simulation in shoulder arthroplasty education using three-dimensional planning software: the role of guidelines and predicted range of motion.

Aim To demonstrate how reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) planning software could be used to improve how the trainees position glenoid and humeral implants and obtain optimal simulated range of motion (ROM). Methods We selected four groups of five various level participants: medical student (MS), junior resident (JR), senior resident (SR), and shoulder expert (SE). Thereafter, the 20 participants planned five cases of arthritic shoulders for a RSA on a validated planning software following three phases: (1) no guidelines and no ROM feedback, (2) guidelines but no ROM feedback, and (3) guidelines and ROM feedback. We evaluated the final simulated impingement-free ROM, the choice of the implant (baseplate size, graft, glenosphere), and the glenoid implant positioning. Results MS planning were significantly improved by the ROM feedback only. JR took the best advantage of both guidelines and ROM in final results. SR planning were less performant than SE into phase 1 regarding flexion, external rotation, and adduction (respectively - 10°, p = 0.03; - 11°, p = 0.003; and - 3°, p = 0,03), but reached similar results into phase 3 (respectively - 2°, p = 0.329; - 4°, p = 0.44; - 2°, p = 0.319). For MS, JR, and SR, we observed a systematic improvement in the agreement over the study course. The glenoid diameter remained highly variable even for SE. Comparing glenoid implant position to SE, the distance error decreased with advancing phases. Conclusion Planning software can be used as a simulation training tool to improve implant positioning in shoulder arthroplasty procedures.