Development of a 3D Printing and Virtual Reality Workflow for Glenoid Fracture Preoperative Planning: A Scoping Review and Preliminary Survey of Surgeons

Covenant Oluwagbenga Orisabinone; Jane Grant; Arpit Jariwala

doi:doi:10.11648/j.ajot.20260102.13

Research Article |

| Peer-Reviewed

Development of a 3D Printing and Virtual Reality Workflow for Glenoid Fracture Preoperative Planning: A Scoping Review and Preliminary Survey of Surgeons

Covenant Oluwagbenga Orisabinone^*

, Jane Grant, Arpit Jariwala

Published in American Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology (Volume 1, Issue 2)

Received: 31 August 2026 Accepted: 8 October 2026 Published: 28 October 2026

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

Glenoid fractures pose a significant challenge for preoperative planning because their complex, comminuted three-dimensional anatomy is incompletely represented by conventional two-dimensional computed tomography (CT). This study aimed to (i) map the evidence on three-dimensional (3D) printing and virtual/augmented reality (VR/AR) for glenoid fracture and related shoulder surgical planning, (ii) assess the technical feasibility of an institutional CT-to-3D-print and CT-to-VR workflow, and (iii) explore preliminary surgeon perceptions. A scoping review was conducted using Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and reported according to PRISMA-ScR. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, IEEE Xplore, and Cochrane Library were searched for English-language studies published from 2010 to 2026. Following duplicate removal and dual-reviewer screening, 20 sources were charted narratively. An institutional workflow was also developed and piloted using anonymised DICOM data with 3D Slicer, Meshmixer, Blender, and Unity. In addition, a 25-item anonymous survey was distributed to 20 orthopaedic clinicians, with eight responses (40%); open-text responses were analysed using template analysis. The evidence comprised cadaveric experiments, case reports/series, retrospective and comparative studies, technical feasibility studies, narrative reviews, and systematic reviews, with generally low-to-moderate methodological certainty. Reported benefits included improved implant positioning, reduced planning or operative time, enhanced anatomical understanding, and educational value. The institutional workflow was technically feasible but encountered print fragility in thin, comminuted regions, and dimensional accuracy was not formally validated. Six respondents (75%) perceived improved understanding of fracture morphology, while five (62.5%) had never personally used 3D printing or VR. Qualitative responses highlighted enhanced spatial understanding, planning confidence, educational and collaborative benefits, cost and accessibility barriers, and preference for selective rather than routine use. Overall, current evidence and preliminary clinician feedback support the feasibility and perceived value of 3D printing and VR in glenoid fracture planning; however, the evidence base remains immature. Rigorous dimensional validation and adequately powered clinical outcome studies are required before routine clinical adoption can be recommended.

Published in	American Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology (Volume 1, Issue 2)
DOI	10.11648/j.ajot.20260102.13
Page(s)	58-71
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2026. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Glenoid Fracture, 3D Printing, Virtual Reality, Preoperative Planning, Scoping Review, Shoulder Arthroplasty, Surgical Education

References

[1]	Alemayehu, D. G.; Zhang, Z.; Tahir, E.; Gateau, D.; Zhang, D.-F.; Ma, X. Preoperative Planning Using 3D Printing Technology in Orthopedic Surgery. BioMed Res. Int. 2021, 2021(1), 7940242. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/7940242
[2]	Dey Hazra, R.-O.; Paksoy, A.; Imiolczyk, J.-P.; Gebauer, H.; Hayta, A.; Akgun, D. Augmented Reality-Assisted Intraoperative Navigation Increases Precision of Glenoid Inclination in Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty. J. Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2025, 34(2), 577-583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2024.05.039
[3]	Fillat-Gomà, F.; Marcano-Fernández, F. A.; Coderch-Navarro, S.; Martínez-Carreres, L.; Berenguer, A. 3D Printing Innovation: New Insights into Upper Extremity Surgery Planning. Injury 2021, 52, S117-S124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2021.01.048
[4]	Handal, B.; Shine, S.; Messmer, M.; Dann, A. The Use of Virtual Reality Training in Preparation for Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty - A Case Report \| Published in Journal of Orthopaedic Experience & Innovation. J. Orthop. Exp. Innov. 2023, 4(1).
[5]	Arksey, H.; O’Malley, L. Scoping Studies: Towards a Methodological Framework. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 2005, 8(1), 19-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616
[6]	Peters, M. D. J.; Marnie, C.; Tricco, A. C.; Pollock, D.; Munn, Z.; Alexander, L.; McInerney, P.; Godfrey, C. M.; Khalil, H. Updated Methodological Guidance for the Conduct. : JBI Evidence Implementation. Ovid 2021, 19(1). https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000277
[7]	Tricco, A. C.; Lillie, E.; Zarin, W.; O’Brien, K. K.; Colquhoun, H.; Levac, D.; Moher, D.; Peters, M. D. J.; Horsley, T.; Weeks, L.; Hempel, S.; Akl, E. A.; Chang, C.; McGowan, J.; Stewart, L.; Hartling, L.; Aldcroft, A.; Wilson, M. G.; Garritty, C.; Lewin, S.; Godfrey, C. M.; Macdonald, M. T.; Langlois, E. V.; Soares-Weiser, K.; Moriarty, J.; Clifford, T.; Tunçalp, Ö.; Straus, S. E. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann. Intern. Med. 2018, 169(7), 467-473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850
[8]	Munn, Z.; Peters, M. D. J.; Stern, C.; Tufanaru, C.; McArthur, A.; Aromataris, E. Systematic Review or Scoping Review? Guidance for Authors When Choosing between a Systematic or Scoping Review Approach. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2018, 18(1), 143. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x
[9]	Gioia, D.; Corley, K.; Eisenhardt, K.; Feldman, M.; Langley, A.; Lê, J.; Golden-Biddle, K.; Locke, K.; Mees-Buss, J.; Piekkari, R.; Ravasi, D.; Rerup, C.; Schmid, T.; Silverman, D.; Welch, C. A Curated Debate: On Using “Templates” in Qualitative Research. J. Manag. Inq. 2022, 31(3), 231-252. https://doi.org/10.1177/10564926221098955
[10]	Rojas, J. T.; Lädermann, A.; Ho, S. W. L.; Rashid, M. S.; Zumstein, M. A. Glenoid Component Placement Assisted by Augmented Reality Through a Head-Mounted Display During Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty. Arthrosc. Tech. 2022, 11(5), e863-e874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eats.2021.12.046
[11]	Fleet, C. T.; Gao, R.; Langohr, G. D. G.; Johnson, J. A.; Athwal, G. S. Accuracy of Glenoid Component Positioning in Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Biomechanical Comparison between 3D Preoperative Planning, PSI, Computer-Assisted Navigation, and Mixed Reality Navigation. EPiC Ser. Health Sci. 2024, 7, 75-79.
[12]	Archetti Netto, N.; Belloti, J. C.; Faloppa, F.; Matsunaga, F. T.; Vasquez Alvarez, E.; Tamaoki, M. J. S. The role of 3D printing in the positioning of the glenoidal component in total shoulder arthroplasty: an experimental study. Clin. Surg. 2021, 6(13), 1-6.
[13]	Schlueter-Brust, K.; Henckel, J.; Katinakis, F.; Buken, C.; Opt-Eynde, J.; Pofahl, T.; Rodriguez y Baena, F.; Tatti, F. Augmented-Reality-Assisted K-Wire Placement for Glenoid Component Positioning in Reversed Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Proof-of-Concept Study. J. Pers. Med. 2021, 11(8), 777. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm11080777
[14]	Trikoupis, I. G.; Mavrodontis, I. I.; Papadopoulos, D. V.; Goumenos, S. D.; Georgoulis, D. A.; Gavriil, P.; Melissaridou, D.; Savvidou, O. D.; Kontogeorgakos, V. A.; Papagelopoulos, P. J. 3D-Printed Glenoid Implant Reconstruction, after Partial Scapulectomy for Malignant Tumors: A Case Series. Eur. J. Orthop. Surg. Traumatol. 2024, 34(3), 1557-1562. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-024-03839-4
[15]	Huang, D.; Ye, Z.; Wang, J.; Chen, F.; Liu, H.; Huang, J. Reconstruction of Recurrent Shoulder Dislocation with Glenoid Bone Defect with 3D-Printed Titanium Alloy Pad: Outcomes at 2-Year Minimum Follow-Up. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2024, 25(1), 29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-023-07148-5
[16]	Kolac, U. C.; Paksoy, A.; Akgün, D. Three-Dimensional Planning, Navigation, Patient-Specific Instrumentation and Mixed Reality in Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Digital Orthopedic Renaissance. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1530/EOR-23-0200
[17]	Longo, U. G.; Lalli, A.; Gobbato, B.; Nazarian, A. Metaverse, Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality in Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2024, 25(1), 396. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-024-07436-8
[18]	La Banca, V.; Viganó, A. V. P.; Giglio, L.; Lima, G. H. V.; Schaffhausser, H. de L.; Michaelis, L. F.; Ikemoto, R. Y. Gender Differences in Glenoid and Coracoid Dimensions Evaluated through 3D Printed Bone Models in the Context of Anterior Shoulder Instability Surgery - An Exploratory Study. Ann. 3D Print. Med. 2023, 12, 100122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stlm.2023.100122
[19]	Orlewski, J.; Hochreiter, B.; Wieser, K.; Kriechling, P. Application of Augmented Reality in Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review. J. Clin. Med. 2025, 14(15), 5533. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14155533
[20]	Merolla, G.; De Filippo, F.; Magrini Pasquinelli, F.; Micheloni, G. M.; Porcellini, G.; Paladini, P.; Castricini, R. Primary and Revision Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Using Custom-Made 3D-Printed Baseplates for Severe Multiplanar Glenoid Bone Defects: A Retrospective Study of Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes. J. Clin. Med. 2025, 14(17), 6153. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14176153
[21]	Gutowski, C. T.; Kelly, N.; Fedorka, C. J. Novel Custom 3D-Printed Glenoid in Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Case Report of Bilateral Total Shoulder Arthroplasties. Cureus 2025. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.78821

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Orisabinone, C. O., Grant, J., Jariwala, A. (2026). Development of a 3D Printing and Virtual Reality Workflow for Glenoid Fracture Preoperative Planning: A Scoping Review and Preliminary Survey of Surgeons. American Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, 1(2), 58-71. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajot.20260102.13

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Orisabinone, C. O.; Grant, J.; Jariwala, A. Development of a 3D Printing and Virtual Reality Workflow for Glenoid Fracture Preoperative Planning: A Scoping Review and Preliminary Survey of Surgeons. Am. J. Orthop. Traumatol. 2026, 1(2), 58-71. doi: 10.11648/j.ajot.20260102.13

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Orisabinone CO, Grant J, Jariwala A. Development of a 3D Printing and Virtual Reality Workflow for Glenoid Fracture Preoperative Planning: A Scoping Review and Preliminary Survey of Surgeons. Am J Orthop Traumatol. 2026;1(2):58-71. doi: 10.11648/j.ajot.20260102.13

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ajot.20260102.13,
  author = {Covenant Oluwagbenga Orisabinone and Jane Grant and Arpit Jariwala},
  title = {Development of a 3D Printing and Virtual Reality Workflow for Glenoid Fracture Preoperative Planning: A Scoping Review and Preliminary Survey of Surgeons},
  journal = {American Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology},
  volume = {1},
  number = {2},
  pages = {58-71},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ajot.20260102.13},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajot.20260102.13},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ajot.20260102.13},
  abstract = {Glenoid fractures pose a significant challenge for preoperative planning because their complex, comminuted three-dimensional anatomy is incompletely represented by conventional two-dimensional computed tomography (CT). This study aimed to (i) map the evidence on three-dimensional (3D) printing and virtual/augmented reality (VR/AR) for glenoid fracture and related shoulder surgical planning, (ii) assess the technical feasibility of an institutional CT-to-3D-print and CT-to-VR workflow, and (iii) explore preliminary surgeon perceptions. A scoping review was conducted using Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and reported according to PRISMA-ScR. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, IEEE Xplore, and Cochrane Library were searched for English-language studies published from 2010 to 2026. Following duplicate removal and dual-reviewer screening, 20 sources were charted narratively. An institutional workflow was also developed and piloted using anonymised DICOM data with 3D Slicer, Meshmixer, Blender, and Unity. In addition, a 25-item anonymous survey was distributed to 20 orthopaedic clinicians, with eight responses (40%); open-text responses were analysed using template analysis. The evidence comprised cadaveric experiments, case reports/series, retrospective and comparative studies, technical feasibility studies, narrative reviews, and systematic reviews, with generally low-to-moderate methodological certainty. Reported benefits included improved implant positioning, reduced planning or operative time, enhanced anatomical understanding, and educational value. The institutional workflow was technically feasible but encountered print fragility in thin, comminuted regions, and dimensional accuracy was not formally validated. Six respondents (75%) perceived improved understanding of fracture morphology, while five (62.5%) had never personally used 3D printing or VR. Qualitative responses highlighted enhanced spatial understanding, planning confidence, educational and collaborative benefits, cost and accessibility barriers, and preference for selective rather than routine use. Overall, current evidence and preliminary clinician feedback support the feasibility and perceived value of 3D printing and VR in glenoid fracture planning; however, the evidence base remains immature. Rigorous dimensional validation and adequately powered clinical outcome studies are required before routine clinical adoption can be recommended.},
 year = {2026}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Development of a 3D Printing and Virtual Reality Workflow for Glenoid Fracture Preoperative Planning: A Scoping Review and Preliminary Survey of Surgeons
AU  - Covenant Oluwagbenga Orisabinone
AU  - Jane Grant
AU  - Arpit Jariwala
Y1  - 2026/10/28
PY  - 2026
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajot.20260102.13
DO  - 10.11648/j.ajot.20260102.13
T2  - American Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology
JF  - American Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology
JO  - American Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology
SP  - 58
EP  - 71
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 3143-7192
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajot.20260102.13
AB  - Glenoid fractures pose a significant challenge for preoperative planning because their complex, comminuted three-dimensional anatomy is incompletely represented by conventional two-dimensional computed tomography (CT). This study aimed to (i) map the evidence on three-dimensional (3D) printing and virtual/augmented reality (VR/AR) for glenoid fracture and related shoulder surgical planning, (ii) assess the technical feasibility of an institutional CT-to-3D-print and CT-to-VR workflow, and (iii) explore preliminary surgeon perceptions. A scoping review was conducted using Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and reported according to PRISMA-ScR. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, IEEE Xplore, and Cochrane Library were searched for English-language studies published from 2010 to 2026. Following duplicate removal and dual-reviewer screening, 20 sources were charted narratively. An institutional workflow was also developed and piloted using anonymised DICOM data with 3D Slicer, Meshmixer, Blender, and Unity. In addition, a 25-item anonymous survey was distributed to 20 orthopaedic clinicians, with eight responses (40%); open-text responses were analysed using template analysis. The evidence comprised cadaveric experiments, case reports/series, retrospective and comparative studies, technical feasibility studies, narrative reviews, and systematic reviews, with generally low-to-moderate methodological certainty. Reported benefits included improved implant positioning, reduced planning or operative time, enhanced anatomical understanding, and educational value. The institutional workflow was technically feasible but encountered print fragility in thin, comminuted regions, and dimensional accuracy was not formally validated. Six respondents (75%) perceived improved understanding of fracture morphology, while five (62.5%) had never personally used 3D printing or VR. Qualitative responses highlighted enhanced spatial understanding, planning confidence, educational and collaborative benefits, cost and accessibility barriers, and preference for selective rather than routine use. Overall, current evidence and preliminary clinician feedback support the feasibility and perceived value of 3D printing and VR in glenoid fracture planning; however, the evidence base remains immature. Rigorous dimensional validation and adequately powered clinical outcome studies are required before routine clinical adoption can be recommended.
VL  - 1
IS  - 2
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Covenant Oluwagbenga Orisabinone

University Department of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery (UDOTS), University of Dundee, Dundee, Scotland

Contact Email

http://orcid.org/0009-0008-4430-1936
Jane Grant

University Department of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery (UDOTS), University of Dundee, Dundee, Scotland

Contact Email
Arpit Jariwala

University Department of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery (UDOTS), University of Dundee, Dundee, Scotland

Contact Email

http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0239-5889

Download PDF

Submit an Article

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Orisabinone, C. O., Grant, J., Jariwala, A. (2026). Development of a 3D Printing and Virtual Reality Workflow for Glenoid Fracture Preoperative Planning: A Scoping Review and Preliminary Survey of Surgeons. American Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, 1(2), 58-71. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajot.20260102.13

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Orisabinone, C. O.; Grant, J.; Jariwala, A. Development of a 3D Printing and Virtual Reality Workflow for Glenoid Fracture Preoperative Planning: A Scoping Review and Preliminary Survey of Surgeons. Am. J. Orthop. Traumatol. 2026, 1(2), 58-71. doi: 10.11648/j.ajot.20260102.13

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Orisabinone CO, Grant J, Jariwala A. Development of a 3D Printing and Virtual Reality Workflow for Glenoid Fracture Preoperative Planning: A Scoping Review and Preliminary Survey of Surgeons. Am J Orthop Traumatol. 2026;1(2):58-71. doi: 10.11648/j.ajot.20260102.13

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ajot.20260102.13,
  author = {Covenant Oluwagbenga Orisabinone and Jane Grant and Arpit Jariwala},
  title = {Development of a 3D Printing and Virtual Reality Workflow for Glenoid Fracture Preoperative Planning: A Scoping Review and Preliminary Survey of Surgeons},
  journal = {American Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology},
  volume = {1},
  number = {2},
  pages = {58-71},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ajot.20260102.13},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajot.20260102.13},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ajot.20260102.13},
  abstract = {Glenoid fractures pose a significant challenge for preoperative planning because their complex, comminuted three-dimensional anatomy is incompletely represented by conventional two-dimensional computed tomography (CT). This study aimed to (i) map the evidence on three-dimensional (3D) printing and virtual/augmented reality (VR/AR) for glenoid fracture and related shoulder surgical planning, (ii) assess the technical feasibility of an institutional CT-to-3D-print and CT-to-VR workflow, and (iii) explore preliminary surgeon perceptions. A scoping review was conducted using Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and reported according to PRISMA-ScR. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, IEEE Xplore, and Cochrane Library were searched for English-language studies published from 2010 to 2026. Following duplicate removal and dual-reviewer screening, 20 sources were charted narratively. An institutional workflow was also developed and piloted using anonymised DICOM data with 3D Slicer, Meshmixer, Blender, and Unity. In addition, a 25-item anonymous survey was distributed to 20 orthopaedic clinicians, with eight responses (40%); open-text responses were analysed using template analysis. The evidence comprised cadaveric experiments, case reports/series, retrospective and comparative studies, technical feasibility studies, narrative reviews, and systematic reviews, with generally low-to-moderate methodological certainty. Reported benefits included improved implant positioning, reduced planning or operative time, enhanced anatomical understanding, and educational value. The institutional workflow was technically feasible but encountered print fragility in thin, comminuted regions, and dimensional accuracy was not formally validated. Six respondents (75%) perceived improved understanding of fracture morphology, while five (62.5%) had never personally used 3D printing or VR. Qualitative responses highlighted enhanced spatial understanding, planning confidence, educational and collaborative benefits, cost and accessibility barriers, and preference for selective rather than routine use. Overall, current evidence and preliminary clinician feedback support the feasibility and perceived value of 3D printing and VR in glenoid fracture planning; however, the evidence base remains immature. Rigorous dimensional validation and adequately powered clinical outcome studies are required before routine clinical adoption can be recommended.},
 year = {2026}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Development of a 3D Printing and Virtual Reality Workflow for Glenoid Fracture Preoperative Planning: A Scoping Review and Preliminary Survey of Surgeons
AU  - Covenant Oluwagbenga Orisabinone
AU  - Jane Grant
AU  - Arpit Jariwala
Y1  - 2026/10/28
PY  - 2026
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajot.20260102.13
DO  - 10.11648/j.ajot.20260102.13
T2  - American Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology
JF  - American Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology
JO  - American Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology
SP  - 58
EP  - 71
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 3143-7192
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajot.20260102.13
AB  - Glenoid fractures pose a significant challenge for preoperative planning because their complex, comminuted three-dimensional anatomy is incompletely represented by conventional two-dimensional computed tomography (CT). This study aimed to (i) map the evidence on three-dimensional (3D) printing and virtual/augmented reality (VR/AR) for glenoid fracture and related shoulder surgical planning, (ii) assess the technical feasibility of an institutional CT-to-3D-print and CT-to-VR workflow, and (iii) explore preliminary surgeon perceptions. A scoping review was conducted using Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and reported according to PRISMA-ScR. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, IEEE Xplore, and Cochrane Library were searched for English-language studies published from 2010 to 2026. Following duplicate removal and dual-reviewer screening, 20 sources were charted narratively. An institutional workflow was also developed and piloted using anonymised DICOM data with 3D Slicer, Meshmixer, Blender, and Unity. In addition, a 25-item anonymous survey was distributed to 20 orthopaedic clinicians, with eight responses (40%); open-text responses were analysed using template analysis. The evidence comprised cadaveric experiments, case reports/series, retrospective and comparative studies, technical feasibility studies, narrative reviews, and systematic reviews, with generally low-to-moderate methodological certainty. Reported benefits included improved implant positioning, reduced planning or operative time, enhanced anatomical understanding, and educational value. The institutional workflow was technically feasible but encountered print fragility in thin, comminuted regions, and dimensional accuracy was not formally validated. Six respondents (75%) perceived improved understanding of fracture morphology, while five (62.5%) had never personally used 3D printing or VR. Qualitative responses highlighted enhanced spatial understanding, planning confidence, educational and collaborative benefits, cost and accessibility barriers, and preference for selective rather than routine use. Overall, current evidence and preliminary clinician feedback support the feasibility and perceived value of 3D printing and VR in glenoid fracture planning; however, the evidence base remains immature. Rigorous dimensional validation and adequately powered clinical outcome studies are required before routine clinical adoption can be recommended.
VL  - 1
IS  - 2
ER  -

Copy | Download