Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow

Korean Shoulder and Elbow Society (대한견·주관절의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Difference in glenoid retroversion between two-dimensional axial computed tomography and three-dimensional reconstructed images

  • Kim, Hyungsuk (Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Eunpyeong St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Yoo, Chang Hyun (Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Eunpyeong St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Park, Soo Bin (Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Eunpyeong St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Song, Hyun Seok (Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Eunpyeong St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea)
  • Received : 2020.03.17
  • Accepted : 2020.05.07
  • Published : 2020.06.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: The glenoid version of the shoulder joint correlates with the stability of the glenohumeral joint and the clinical results of total shoulder arthroplasty. We sought to analyze and compare the glenoid version measured by traditional axial two-dimensional (2D) computed tomography (CT) and three-dimensional (3D) reconstructed images at different levels. Methods: A total of 30 cases, including 15 male and 15 female patients, who underwent 3D shoulder CT imaging was randomly selected and matched by sex consecutively at one hospital. The angular difference between the scapular body axis and 2D CT slice axis was measured. The glenoid version was assessed at three levels (midpoint, upper one-third, and center of the lower circle of the glenoid) using Friedman's method in the axial plane with 2D CT images and at the same level of three different transverse planes using a 3D reconstructed image. Results: The mean difference between the scapular body axis on the 3D reconstructed image and the 2D CT slice axis was 38.4°. At the level of the midpoint of the glenoid, the measurements were 1.7°±4.9° on the 2D CT images and -1.8°±4.1° in the 3D reconstructed image. At the level of the center of the lower circle, the measurements were 2.7°±5.2° on the 2D CT images and -0.5°±4.8° in the 3D reconstructed image. A statistically significant difference was found between the 2D CT and 3D reconstructed images at all three levels. Conclusions: The glenoid version is measured differently between axial 2D CT and 3D reconstructed images at three levels. Use of 3D reconstructed imaging can provide a more accurate glenoid version profile relative to 2D CT. The glenoid version is measured differently at different levels.

Keywords

References

  1. Yian EH, Werner CM, Nyffeler RW, et al. Radiographic and computed tomography analysis of cemented pegged polyethylene glenoid components in total shoulder replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005;87:1928-36. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200509000-00004
  2. Tetreault P, Krueger A, Zurakowski D, Gerber C. Glenoid version and rotator cuff tears. J Orthop Res 2004;22:202-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0736-0266(03)00116-5
  3. Crockett HC, Gross LB, Wilk KE, et al. Osseous adaptation and range of motion at the glenohumeral joint in professional baseball pitchers. Am J Sports Med 2002;30:20-6. https://doi.org/10.1177/03635465020300011701
  4. Weishaupt D, Zanetti M, Nyffeler RW, Gerber C, Hodler J. Posterior glenoid rim deficiency in recurrent (atraumatic) posterior shoulder instability. Skeletal Radiol 2000;29:204-10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002560050594
  5. Wirth MA, Seltzer DG, Rockwood CA Jr. Recurrent posterior glenohumeral dislocation associated with increased retroversion of the glenoid: a case report. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1994;98-101.
  6. Friedman RJ, Hawthorne KB, Genez BM. The use of computerized tomography in the measurement of glenoid version. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1992;74:1032-7. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-199274070-00009
  7. Churchill RS, Brems JJ, Kotschi H. Glenoid size, inclination, and version: an anatomic study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2001;10:327-32. https://doi.org/10.1067/mse.2001.115269
  8. Shapiro TA, McGarry MH, Gupta R, Lee YS, Lee TQ. Biomechanical effects of glenoid retroversion in total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2007;16 Suppl 3:S90-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2006.07.010
  9. van de Bunt F, Pearl ML, Lee EK, Peng L, Didomenico P. Glenoid version by CT scan: an analysis of clinical measurement error and introduction of a protocol to reduce variability. Skeletal Radiol 2015;44:1627-35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-015-2207-4
  10. Nyffeler RW, Sheikh R, Atkinson TS, Jacob HA, Favre P, Gerber C. Effects of glenoid component version on humeral head displacement and joint reaction forces: an experimental study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2006;15:625-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2005.09.016
  11. Wong AS, Gallo L, Kuhn JE, Carpenter JE, Hughes RE. The effect of glenoid inclination on superior humeral head migration. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2003;12:360-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1058-2746(03)00026-0
  12. Das SP, Ray GS, Saha AK. Observations on the tilt of the glenoid cavity of scapula. J Anat Soc India 1966;15:114-8.
  13. Kwon YW, Powell KA, Yum JK, Brems JJ, Iannotti JP. Use of three-dimensional computed tomography for the analysis of the glenoid anatomy. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2005;14:85-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2004.04.011
  14. Nyffeler RW, Jost B, Pfirrmann CW, Gerber C. Measurement of glenoid version: conventional radiographs versus computed tomography scans. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2003;12:493-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1058-2746(03)00181-2
  15. Inui H, Sugamoto K, Miyamoto T, Machida A, Hashimoto J, Nobuhara K. Evaluation of three-dimensional glenoid structure using MRI. J Anat 2001;199 Pt 3:323-8. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1469-7580.2001.19930323.x
  16. Lowe JT, Testa EJ, Li X, Miller S, DeAngelis JP, Jawa A. Magnetic resonance imaging is comparable to computed tomography for determination of glenoid version but does not accurately distinguish between Walch B2 and C classifications. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2017;26:669-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2016.09.024
  17. Bryce CD, Davison AC, Lewis GS, Wang L, Flemming DJ, Armstrong AD. Two-dimensional glenoid version measurements vary with coronal and sagittal scapular rotation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2010;92:692-9. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.I.00177
  18. Budge MD, Lewis GS, Schaefer E, Coquia S, Flemming DJ, Armstrong AD. Comparison of standard two-dimensional and three-dimensional corrected glenoid version measurements. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2011;20:577-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2010.11.003
  19. Yushkevich PA, Piven J, Hazlett HC, et al. User-guided 3D active contour segmentation of anatomical structures: significantly improved efficiency and reliability. Neuroimage 2006;31:1116-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.01.015
  20. Rouleau DM, Kidder JF, Pons-Villanueva J, Dynamidis S, Defranco M, Walch G. Glenoid version: how to measure it? Validity of different methods in two-dimensional computed tomography scans. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2010;19:1230-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2010.01.027
  21. Schrumpf M, Maak T, Hammoud S, Craig EV. The glenoid in total shoulder arthroplasty. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 2011;4:191-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-011-9096-5
  22. Williams GR Jr, Wong KL, Pepe MD, et al. The effect of articular malposition after total shoulder arthroplasty on glenohumeral translations, range of motion, and subacromial impingement. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2001;10:399-409. https://doi.org/10.1067/mse.2001.116871
  23. Farron A, Terrier A, Buchler P. Risks of loosening of a prosthetic glenoid implanted in retroversion. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2006;15:521-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2005.10.003
  24. Bokor DJ, O'Sullivan MD, Hazan GJ. Variability of measurement of glenoid version on computed tomography scan. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 1999;8:595-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1058-2746(99)90096-4
  25. Lewis GS, Armstrong AD. Glenoid spherical orientation and version. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2011;20:3-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2010.05.012
  26. Monk AP, Berry E, Limb D, Soames RW. Laser morphometric analysis of the glenoid fossa of the scapula. Clin Anat 2001;14:320-3. https://doi.org/10.1002/ca.1058