Preoperative traditional software planning (TSP) is a method used to assist surgeons with implant selection and glenoid guide-pin insertion in shoulder arthroplasty. Mixed-Reality (MR) is a new technology that uses digital holograms of the preoperative plan and guide-pin trajectory projected into the operative field. The purpose of this study was to compare TSP to MR in a simulated surgical environment involving insertion of guide-pins into models of severely deformed glenoids. Methods: Eight surgeons inserted guide-pins into eight randomized three-dimensional-printed severely eroded glenoid models in a simulated surgical environment using either TSP or MR. In total, 128 glenoid models were used and statistically compared. The outcomes compared between techniques included procedural time, difference in guide-pin start point, difference in version and inclination, and surgeon confidence via a confidence rating scale. Results: When comparing traditional preoperative software planning to MR visualization as techniques to assist surgeons in glenoid guide pin insertion, there were no statistically significant differences in terms of mean procedure time (P=0.634), glenoid start-point (TSP = 2.2 ± 0.2 mm , MR = 2.1 ± 0.1 mm; P=0.760), guide-pin orientation (P=0.586), or confidence rating score (P=0.850). Conclusions: The results demonstrate that there were no significant differences between traditional preoperative software planning and MR visualization for guide-pin placement into models of eroded glenoids. A perceived benefit of MR is the real-time intraoperative visibility of the surgical plan and the patient’s anatomy; however, this did not translate into decreased procedural time or improved guide-pin position. Level of evidence: Basic Science Study; Biomechanics

Purpose: Prostate cancer (PCa) screening can lead to potential over-diagnosis/over-treatment of indolent cancers. There is a need to optimize practices to better risk-stratify patients. We examined initial longitudinal outcomes of mid-life men with an elevated baseline prostate-specific antigen (PSA) following initiation of a novel screening program within a system-wide network. Materials and Methods: We assessed our primary care network patients ages 40 to 49 years with a PSA measured following implementation of an electronic health record screening algorithm from 2/2/2017–2/21/2018. The multidisciplinary algorithm was developed taking factors including age, race, family history, and PSA into consideration to provide a personalized approach to urology referral to be used with shared decision-making. Outcomes of men with PSA ≥1.5 ng/mL were evaluated through 7/2021. Statistical analyses identified factors associated with PCa detection. Clinically significant PCa (csPCa) was defined as Gleason Grade Group (GGG) ≥2 or GGG1 with PSA ≥10 ng/mL. Results: The study cohort contained 564 patients, with 330 (58.5%) referred to urology for elevated PSA. Forty-nine (8.7%) underwent biopsy; of these, 20 (40.8%) returned with PCa. Eleven (2.0% of total cohort and 55% of PCa diagnoses) had csPCa. Early referral timing (odds ratio [OR], 4.58) and higher PSA (OR, 1.07) were significantly associated with PCa at biopsy on multivariable analysis (both p<0.05), while other risk factors were not. Referred patients had higher mean PSAs (2.97 vs. 1.98, p=0.001). Conclusions Preliminary outcomes following implementation of a multidisciplinary screening algorithm identified PCa in a small, important percentage of men in their forties. These results provide insight into baseline PSA measurement to provide early risk stratification and detection of csPCa in patients with otherwise extended life expectancy. Further follow-up is needed to possibly determine the prognostic significance of such mid-life screening and optimize primary care physician-urologist coordination.