Purpose Computer-aided navigation and patient-specific 3D printed guides have demonstrated superior outcomes in total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). Nevertheless, few TSAs are inserted using these technologies. Head-worn augmented reality (AR) devices can provide intuitive 3D computer navigation to the surgeon. This study investigates AR navigation in conjunction with adaptive spatial drift correction toward TSA. Methods A phantom study was performed to assess the performance of AR navigated pin placement in TSA. Two medical experts performed a total of 12 pin placements into phantom scapula; six were placed using an end-to-end AR-navigated technique, and six using a common freehand technique. Inside-out infrared (IR) tracking was designed and integrated into the AR headset to correct for device drift and provide tool tracking. Additionally, the impact of IR tool tracking, registration, and superposed/juxtaposed visualization techniques was investigated. Results The AR-navigated pin placement resulted in a mean entry point error of 1.06 mm ± 0.64 mm and directional error of <InlineEquation ID="IEq1"> <InlineMediaObject> <ImageObject Color="BlackWhite" FileRef="11548_2025_3444_Article_IEq1.gif" Format="GIF" Height="15" Rendition="HTML" Resolution="72" Type="Linedraw" Width="93" /> </InlineMediaObject> <EquationSource Format="TEX">${1.66^\circ \pm 0.65^\circ }$</EquationSource> <EquationSource Format="MATHML"><math> <mrow> <mn>1</mn> <mo>.</mo> <msup> <mn>66</mn> <mo>∘</mo> </msup> <mo>±</mo> <mn>0</mn> <mo>.</mo> <msup> <mn>65</mn> <mo>∘</mo> </msup> </mrow> </math></EquationSource> </InlineEquation>. Compared with the freehand technique, AR navigation resulted in improved directional outcomes (<InlineEquation ID="IEq2"> <InlineMediaObject> <ImageObject Color="BlackWhite" FileRef="11548_2025_3444_Article_IEq2.gif" Format="GIF" Height="16" Rendition="HTML" Resolution="72" Type="Linedraw" Width="62" /> </InlineMediaObject> <EquationSource Format="TEX">$p=0.03$</EquationSource> <EquationSource Format="MATHML"><math> <mrow> <mi>p</mi> <mo>=</mo> <mn>0.03</mn> </mrow> </math></EquationSource> </InlineEquation>), while entry point accuracy was not significantly different (<InlineEquation ID="IEq3"> <InlineMediaObject> <ImageObject Color="BlackWhite" FileRef="11548_2025_3444_Article_IEq3.gif" Format="GIF" Height="16" Rendition="HTML" Resolution="72" Type="Linedraw" Width="62" /> </InlineMediaObject> <EquationSource Format="TEX">$p=0.44$</EquationSource> <EquationSource Format="MATHML"><math> <mrow> <mi>p</mi> <mo>=</mo> <mn>0.44</mn> </mrow> </math></EquationSource> </InlineEquation>). IR tool tracking error was 1.47 mm ± 0.69 mm and <InlineEquation ID="IEq4"> <InlineMediaObject> <ImageObject Color="BlackWhite" FileRef="11548_2025_3444_Article_IEq4.gif" Format="GIF" Height="15" Rendition="HTML" Resolution="72" Type="Linedraw" Width="93" /> </InlineMediaObject> <EquationSource Format="TEX">${0.92^\circ \pm 0.50^\circ }$</EquationSource> <EquationSource Format="MATHML"><math> <mrow> <mn>0</mn> <mo>.</mo> <msup> <mn>92</mn> <mo>∘</mo> </msup> <mo>±</mo> <mn>0</mn> <mo>.</mo> <msup> <mn>50</mn> <mo>∘</mo> </msup> </mrow> </math></EquationSource> </InlineEquation>, and registration error was 4.32 mm ± 1.75 mm and <InlineEquation ID="IEq5"> <InlineMediaObject> <ImageObject Color="BlackWhite" FileRef="11548_2025_3444_Article_IEq5.gif" Format="GIF" Height="15" Rendition="HTML" Resolution="72" Type="Linedraw" Width="93" /> </InlineMediaObject> <EquationSource Format="TEX">${2.56^\circ \pm 0.82^\circ }$</EquationSource> <EquationSource Format="MATHML"><math> <mrow> <mn>2</mn> <mo>.</mo> <msup> <mn>56</mn> <mo>∘</mo> </msup> <mo>±</mo> <mn>0</mn> <mo>.</mo> <msup> <mn>82</mn> <mo>∘</mo> </msup> </mrow> </math></EquationSource> </InlineEquation>. No statistical difference between AR visualization techniques was found in entry point (<InlineEquation ID="IEq6"> <InlineMediaObject> <ImageObject Color="BlackWhite" FileRef="11548_2025_3444_Article_IEq6.gif" Format="GIF" Height="16" Rendition="HTML" Resolution="72" Type="Linedraw" Width="62" /> </InlineMediaObject> <EquationSource Format="TEX">$p=0.22$</EquationSource> <EquationSource Format="MATHML"><math> <mrow> <mi>p</mi> <mo>=</mo> <mn>0.22</mn> </mrow> </math></EquationSource> </InlineEquation>) or directional (<InlineEquation ID="IEq7"> <InlineMediaObject> <ImageObject Color="BlackWhite" FileRef="11548_2025_3444_Article_IEq7.gif" Format="GIF" Height="16" Rendition="HTML" Resolution="72" Type="Linedraw" Width="62" /> </InlineMediaObject> <EquationSource Format="TEX">$p=0.31$</EquationSource> <EquationSource Format="MATHML"><math> <mrow> <mi>p</mi> <mo>=</mo> <mn>0.31</mn> </mrow> </math></EquationSource> </InlineEquation>) errors. Conclusion AR navigation allowed for comparable pin placement outcomes with those reported in the literature for patient-specific 3D printed guides; moreover, it complements the patient-specific planning without the need for the guides themselves.

Evaluation of augmented reality guidance for glenoid pin placement in total shoulder arthroplasty

期刊论文
出版模式：

开放获取
发表日期：

2025年6月11日

查看全文

Taylor Frantz,
Frederick van Gestel,
Pieter Slagmolen,
Johnny Duerinck,
Thierry Scheerlinck,
Jef Vandemeulebroucke

摘要

Purpose

Computer-aided navigation and patient-specific 3D printed guides have demonstrated superior outcomes in total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). Nevertheless, few TSAs are inserted using these technologies. Head-worn augmented reality (AR) devices can provide intuitive 3D computer navigation to the surgeon. This study investigates AR navigation in conjunction with adaptive spatial drift correction toward TSA.

Methods

A phantom study was performed to assess the performance of AR navigated pin placement in TSA. Two medical experts performed a total of 12 pin placements into phantom scapula; six were placed using an end-to-end AR-navigated technique, and six using a common freehand technique. Inside-out infrared (IR) tracking was designed and integrated into the AR headset to correct for device drift and provide tool tracking. Additionally, the impact of IR tool tracking, registration, and superposed/juxtaposed visualization techniques was investigated.

Results

The AR-navigated pin placement resulted in a mean entry point error of 1.06 mm ± 0.64 mm and directional error of ${1.66^\circ \pm 0.65^\circ }$ $1 . 66^{\circ} \pm 0 . 65^{\circ}$ . Compared with the freehand technique, AR navigation resulted in improved directional outcomes ( $p=0.03$ $p = 0.03$ ), while entry point accuracy was not significantly different ( $p=0.44$ $p = 0.44$ ). IR tool tracking error was 1.47 mm ± 0.69 mm and ${0.92^\circ \pm 0.50^\circ }$ $0 . 92^{\circ} \pm 0 . 50^{\circ}$ , and registration error was 4.32 mm ± 1.75 mm and ${2.56^\circ \pm 0.82^\circ }$ $2 . 56^{\circ} \pm 0 . 82^{\circ}$ . No statistical difference between AR visualization techniques was found in entry point ( $p=0.22$ $p = 0.22$ ) or directional ( $p=0.31$ $p = 0.31$ ) errors.

Conclusion

AR navigation allowed for comparable pin placement outcomes with those reported in the literature for patient-specific 3D printed guides; moreover, it complements the patient-specific planning without the need for the guides themselves.