Literature DB >> 18328741

Normal glenoid vault anatomy and validation of a novel glenoid implant shape.

Michael J Codsi1, Craig Bennetts, Katherine Gordiev, Daniel M Boeck, Young Kwon, John Brems, Kimerly Powell, Joseph P Iannotti.   

Abstract

Current glenoid implants are designed to be secured to the articular surface. When the articular surface is compromised, a glenoid component could be implanted if it obtained fixation from the endosteal surface of the glenoid vault. The first step for designing such a glenoid implant is to define the normal three-dimensional anatomy of the glenoid vault. The purpose of this study was to define the variations in glenoid vault shape in a large group of cadaver scapula. Computed tomographic (CT) scans of 61 normal scapulae (mean, 25-34 years) from the Haman-Todd Osteological Collection, with a wide range of sizes, were examined to define the normal glenoid vault anatomy. A custom software program was used to manipulate and measure the scans to determine the morphologic variations among the different glenoid vaults. From these data, we defined a unique glenoid vault shape and empirically developed 5 sizes to represent the study population of the 61 scapulae. A second group of 11 cadaver scapulae were used to validate the shape defined using the other 61. Prototype implants were placed into the real 11 scapulae using standard surgical techniques and then CT-scanned to analyze the shape of the glenoid vault. In the 61 scapulae, 85% of the points defining the endosteal surfaces vary among scapulae by less than 2 mm. For each of the 11 cadaver scapulae, the implant size used in the virtual computer implantation was the same size used for the plastic components placed into the cadaver scapulae. Fifty percent of the measured distances between the outer dimensions of the plastic models was within 2.4 mm of the glenoid endosteal surface. Eighty percent of the surface area of the plastic models was within 3.1 mm of the glenoid endosteal surface. Five percent of the dimensions were less than 1 mm and were considered to be areas of point contact. Before designing implants that can be used in pathologic glenoids, the shape of the normal glenoid vault must first be defined. This study defined a normal glenoid vault shape that can accommodate different sized scapula with 5 sizes. This glenoid shape may be used as a template to design a glenoid implant that obtains fixation within the glenoid vault.

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18328741     DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2007.08.010

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


  22 in total

1.  Defining the normal acetabular vault in adult males and females using a novel three-dimensional model.

Authors:  Wael K Barsoum; Travis Smith; Leonard Buller; Feno Monaco; Alison Klika; Constantine Mavroudis; Jason Bryan
Journal:  J Anat       Date:  2012-06-07       Impact factor: 2.610

2.  Surgical management of the biconcave (B2) glenoid.

Authors:  Kenneth W Donohue; Eric T Ricchetti; Joseph P Iannotti
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2016-03

3.  How to deal with glenoid type B2 or C? How to prevent mistakes in implantation of glenoid component?

Authors:  Jean Kany; Denis Katz
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2012-11-02

4.  The glenoid in total shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  Mark Schrumpf; Travis Maak; Sommer Hammoud; Edward V Craig
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2011-12

5.  The influence of radiographic viewing perspective and demographics on the critical shoulder angle.

Authors:  Thomas Suter; Ariane Gerber Popp; Yue Zhang; Chong Zhang; Robert Z Tashjian; Heath B Henninger
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2015-01-13       Impact factor: 3.019

6.  Optimal insertion site of glenoid baseplate in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: anatomical simulation using three dimensional image processing software.

Authors:  Hyeon Jang Jeong; Myeong Gon Jeong; Sang Woo Kim; Jian Han; Bei Liu; Sung-Min Rhee; Joo Han Oh
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2021-10-08       Impact factor: 3.075

7.  Is premorbid glenoid anatomy altered in patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis?

Authors:  Eric T Ricchetti; Michael D Hendel; David N Collins; Joseph P Iannotti
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-05-18       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty using helical blade to optimize glenoid fixation and bone preservation: preliminary results in thirty five patients with minimum two year follow-up.

Authors:  Sebastien Zilber; Eleonora Camana; Peter Lapner; Emil Haritinian; Laurent Nove Josserand
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2018-03-26       Impact factor: 3.075

9.  Quantitative assessment and characterization of glenoid bone loss in a spectrum of patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis.

Authors:  D J Lombardo; J Khan; B Prey; L Zhang; G R Petersen-Fitts; V J Sabesan
Journal:  Musculoskelet Surg       Date:  2016-06-03

10.  Total shoulder arthroplasty does not correct the orientation of the eroded glenoid.

Authors:  Thomas Gregory; Ulrich Hansen; Roger Emery; Andrew A Amis; Celine Mutchler; Fabienne Taillieu; Bernard Augereau
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 3.717

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.