Use of Preoperative CT Scans and Patient-Specific Instrumentation May Not Improve Short-Term Adverse Events After Shoulder Arthroplasty: Results from a Large Integrated Health-Care System

BACKGROUND: Ongoing innovation leads to a continuous influx of new technologies related to shoulder arthroplasty. These are made available to surgeons and marketed to both health-care providers and patients with the hope of improving outcomes. We sought to evaluate how preoperative planning technologies for shoulder arthroplasty affect outcomes. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study conducted using data from an integrated health-care system’s shoulder arthroplasty registry. Adult patients who underwent primary elective anatomic or reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (2015 to 2020) were identified. Preoperative planning technologies were identified as (1) a computed tomography (CT) scan and (2) patient-specific instrumentation (PSI). Multivariable Cox regression and logistic regression were used to compare the risk of aseptic revision and 90-day adverse events, respectively, between procedures for which technologies were and were not used. RESULTS: The study sample included 8,117 procedures (in 7,372 patients) with an average follow-up of 2.9 years (maximum, 6 years). No reduction in the risk of aseptic revision was observed for patients having either preoperative CT scans (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.87 to 1.72) or PSI (HR = 1.44; 95% CI = 0.71 to 2.92). Patients having CT scans had a lower likelihood of 90-day emergency department visits (odds ratio [OR] = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.73 to 0.97) but a higher likelihood of 90-day venous thromboembolic events (OR = 1.79; 95% CI = 1.18 to 2.74). Patients with PSI use had a higher likelihood of 90-day deep infection (OR = 7.74; 95% CI = 1.11 to 53.94). CONCLUSIONS: We found no reduction in the risk of aseptic revision with the use of these technologies. Patients having CT scans and PSI use had a higher likelihood of venous thromboembolism and deep infection, respectively. Ongoing research with extended follow-up is being conducted to further examine the effects of these technologies on patient outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.