Literature DB >> 12195250

Geometry of the proximal humerus and implications for prosthetic design.

Ralph Hertel1, Ulf Knothe, Franz T Ballmer.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to add critical information to the data already available on anthropometry of the proximal humerus. Two hundred macerated humeri were examined. Measurements were taken either directly on the bones or on standardized radiographic projections. The methodology was validated and showed a mean interobserver correlation of 0.94 +/- 0.067. Results were expressed in mean values, first SD, and minimum and maximum values, as well as the 10th and 90th percentiles. The frontal radius of the head ranged between 21 and 26.5 mm (10th respectively 90th percentile). The frontal diameter of the base of the head ranged between 39.4 and 50 mm. The head height ranged between 14.4 and 18.8 mm. The frontal radius-head height ratio ranged between 0.64 and 0.77. The inclination of the head ranged between 132 degrees and 142 degrees. The medial offset ranged between 3.9 and 8.6 mm. The posterior offset ranged between -0.4 and 3.2 mm. The greater tuberosity offset (distance between the axis of the proximal humerus and the most medial insertion point of the supraspinatus tendon) ranged between 2.5 and 9.2 mm. Retrotorsion ranged between 7 degrees and 38.5 degrees. The distance from the bicipital groove to the head equator ranged between 6 and 10.5 mm. The anatomy of the proximal humerus showed a wide range for variables such as the medial offset and the greater tuberosity offset but was surprisingly constant for the inclination and relative dimensions of the head. The implications for prosthetic design are as follows: stem design and insertion should respect the insertion facet of the supraspinatus, a constant head inclination is an adequate approximation, only one head height per radius is required, and the capability for adjustment of medial offset is mandatory.

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12195250     DOI: 10.1067/mse.2002.124429

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg        ISSN: 1058-2746            Impact factor:   3.019


  53 in total

1.  Surgical treatment of Neer Group VI proximal humeral fractures: retrospective comparison of PHILOS® and hemiarthroplasty.

Authors:  Christian Spross; Andreas Platz; Matthias Erschbamer; Thomas Lattmann; Michael Dietrich
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2011-12-13       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 2.  [Fractures of the humerus head].

Authors:  M Jaeger; K Izadpanah; D Maier; K Reising; P C Strohm; N P Südkamp
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 0.955

3.  Variability of medial and posterior offset in patients with fourth-generation stemmed shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  Ulrich Irlenbusch; Alexander Berth; Georges Blatter; Peter Zenz
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 3.075

4.  Prospective study of double-eccentric hemi shoulder arthroplasty in different aetiologies: midterm results.

Authors:  Ulrich Irlenbusch; Georges Blatter; Katja Gebhardt; Geza Pap; Peter Zenz
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2010-09-15       Impact factor: 3.075

5.  Effect of posterior offset humeral components on range of motion in reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  Nicolas J Dedy; Martin Stangenberg; Dennis Liem; Christof Hurschler; Beat Simmen; Marc Riner; Bjoern Marquardt; Joern Steinbeck
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2010-06-20       Impact factor: 3.075

6.  Differences in reconstruction of the anatomy with modern adjustable compared to second-generation shoulder prosthesis.

Authors:  Ulrich Irlenbusch; Steffen End; Mustafa Kilic
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2010-07-13       Impact factor: 3.075

7.  Does an increase in modularity improve the outcomes of total shoulder replacement? Comparison across design generations.

Authors:  Bradley Schoch; Jean-David Werthel; Cathy Schleck; John W Sperling; Robert H Cofield
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2015-08-06       Impact factor: 3.075

8.  Minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis in proximal humeral fractures: one-year results of a prospective multicenter study.

Authors:  Francesco Falez; Matteo Papalia; Alessandro Greco; Antonio Teti; Fabio Favetti; Gabriele Panegrossi; Filippo Casella; Stefano Necozione
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2015-12-19       Impact factor: 3.075

9.  Dual plating of humeral shaft fractures: orthogonal plates biomechanically outperform side-by-side plates.

Authors:  Victor Kosmopoulos; Arvind D Nana
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-11-12       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  Postoperative Evaluation of Reduction Loss in Proximal Humeral Fractures: A Comparison of Plain Radiographs and Computed Tomography.

Authors:  Xiao-Yang Jia; Yan-Xi Chen; Min-Fei Qiang; Kun Zhang; Hao-Bo Li; Yu-Chen Jiang; Yi-Jie Zhang
Journal:  Orthop Surg       Date:  2017-05-30       Impact factor: 2.071

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.