Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow

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

DOI QR Code

Comparative study of glenoid version and inclination using two-dimensional images from computed tomography and three-dimensional reconstructed bone models

  • Choi, Chang-Hyuk (Department of Orthopedic Surgery, School of Medicine, Catholic University of Daegu) ;
  • Kim, Hee-Chan (Department of Orthopedic Surgery, School of Medicine, Catholic University of Daegu) ;
  • Kang, Daewon (Department of Orthopedic Surgery, School of Medicine, Catholic University of Daegu) ;
  • Kim, Jun-Young (Department of Orthopedic Surgery, School of Medicine, Catholic University of Daegu)
  • Received : 2020.08.04
  • Accepted : 2020.08.24
  • Published : 2020.09.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: This study was performed to compare glenoid version and inclination measured using two-dimensional (2D) images from computed tomography (CT) scans or three-dimensional (3D) reconstructed bone models. Methods: Thirty patients who had undergone conventional CT scans were included. Two orthopedic surgeons measured glenoid version and inclination three times on 2D images from CT scans (2D measurement), and two other orthopedic surgeons performed the same measurements using 3D reconstructed bone models (3D measurement). The 3D-reconstructed bone models were acquired and measured with Mimics and 3-Matics (Materialise). Results: Mean glenoid version and inclination in 2D measurements were -1.705° and 9.08°, respectively, while those in 3D measurements were 2.635° and 7.23°. The intra-observer reliability in 2D measurements was 0.605 and 0.698, respectively, while that in 3D measurements was 0.883 and 0.892. The inter-observer reliability in 2D measurements was 0.456 and 0.374, respectively, while that in 3D measurements was 0.853 and 0.845. Conclusions: The difference between 2D and 3D measurements is not due to differences in image data but to the use of different tools. However, more consistent results were obtained in 3D measurement. Therefore, 3D measurement can be a good alternative for measuring glenoid version and inclination.

Keywords

References

  1. Walch G, Mesiha M, Boileau P, et al. Three-dimensional assessment of the dimensions of the osteoarthritic glenoid. Bone Joint J 2013;95:1377-82. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.95B10.32012
  2. Boileau P, Cheval D, Gauci MO, Holzer N, Chaoui J, Walch G. Automated Three-dimensional measurement of glenoid version and inclination in arthritic shoulders. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2018;100:57-65. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.16.01122
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. Ganapathi A, McCarron JA, Chen X, Iannotti JP. Predicting normal glenoid version from the pathologic scapula: a comparison of 4 methods in 2- and 3-dimensional models. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2011;20:234-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2010.05.024
  9. Mizuno N, Nonaka S, Ozaki R, Yoshida M, Yoneda M, Walch G. Three-dimensional assessment of the normal Japanese glenoid and comparison with the normal French glenoid. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2017;103:1271-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2017.08.015
  10. Friedman RJ. Glenohumeral translation after total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 1992;1:312-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1058-2746(09)80058-X
  11. Maurer A, Fucentese SF, Pfirrmann CW, et al. Assessment of glenoid inclination on routine clinical radiographs and computed tomography examinations of the shoulder. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2012;21:1096-103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2011.07.010
  12. Hohne KH, Bernstein R. Shading 3D-images from CT using gray-level gradients. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 1986;5:45-7. https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.1986.4307738
  13. Hoenecke HR Jr, Hermida JC, Flores-Hernandez C, D'Lima DD. Accuracy of CT-based measurements of glenoid version for total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2010;19:166-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2009.08.009
  14. 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
  15. Bercik MJ, Kruse K 2nd, Yalizis M, Gauci MO, Chaoui J, Walch G. A modification to the Walch classification of the glenoid in primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis using three-dimensional imaging. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2016;25:1601-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2016.03.010
  16. Sabesan VJ, Callanan M, Youderian A, Iannotti JP. 3D CT assessment of the relationship between humeral head alignment and glenoid retroversion in glenohumeral osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2014;96:e64. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.L.00856