And we implemented HoloLens-based mixed-reality guidance for anatomic TSA last month; in 12 consecutive cases, deviation from plan averaged 1.6 mm with zero cortical breaches, and our week-6 PT notes show most patients at about 120° forward flexion without readmission. For those trialing MR or patient-specific guides, are you seeing a real gain in precision that translates to cleaner post-op courses and fewer unplanned visits?
We’ve run HoloLens guidance on 18 anatomic TSAs; mean glenoid deviation about 1.8 mm (version within 2°), close to your 1.6 mm, and the real win has been confidence on pilot trajectory with no re-dos. > without readmission. For those trialing MR or patient-specific guides, are you seeing a real gain in Yes — once we added a 60‑second registration check on coracoid + scapular spine before reaming, the overlay stayed honest. Caveat: if lighting shifts or the drape bumps the marker, it drifts; in those cases PSI is faster for me.
That’s impressive to see such precision with the HoloLens! In my experience, using these mixed-reality tools has definitely boosted my confidence during complex cases, especially with anatomy that’s tricky. I’ve noticed that my anterior flexion outcomes are often better, but I still worry about the steep learning curve for new users.
It’s fascinating how tech like HoloLens can turn us into modern-day wizards, huh? I had similar success with mixed reality in complex cases, especially in those unpredictable moments where precision is key… How do you find the learning curve when switching to these tools, @simon_p42?