John J Tackett1, Robert H Ablove. 1. Department of Orthopedics and Rehabilitation, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: During glenohumeral arthroplasty, not only should the dimensions of the prosthesis match the normal anatomy but also the relationship of the humeral head-greater tuberosity and humeral head inclination should be replicated to avoid muscular dysfunction. To date there is no evidence whether fit could be optimized with gender-specific prostheses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Magnetic resonance (MR) arthrography imaging was used to evaluate 81 proximal humeral scans for 5 different anatomic parameters. The study group included 41 men and 40 women, aged 20 to 62 years. Anatomic parameters, including the humeral head height, humeral head width, humeral head-greater tuberosity distance, humeral head inclination, and glenoid version were measured using Horizon Rad Station 11.0 to evaluate the MR imaging. RESULTS: The humeral head height, width, and distance to the greater tuberosity were significantly different in size between genders. However, none of the anatomic relationships were different. The humeral head-greater tuberosity distance significantly correlated with the humeral head inclination in both men (r = 0.338; P < .05) and women (r = 0.448; P < .005). CONCLUSION: We conclude that there are no significant differences in glenohumeral relationships between genders.
BACKGROUND: During glenohumeral arthroplasty, not only should the dimensions of the prosthesis match the normal anatomy but also the relationship of the humeral head-greater tuberosity and humeral head inclination should be replicated to avoid muscular dysfunction. To date there is no evidence whether fit could be optimized with gender-specific prostheses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Magnetic resonance (MR) arthrography imaging was used to evaluate 81 proximal humeral scans for 5 different anatomic parameters. The study group included 41 men and 40 women, aged 20 to 62 years. Anatomic parameters, including the humeral head height, humeral head width, humeral head-greater tuberosity distance, humeral head inclination, and glenoid version were measured using Horizon Rad Station 11.0 to evaluate the MR imaging. RESULTS: The humeral head height, width, and distance to the greater tuberosity were significantly different in size between genders. However, none of the anatomic relationships were different. The humeral head-greater tuberosity distance significantly correlated with the humeral head inclination in both men (r = 0.338; P < .05) and women (r = 0.448; P < .005). CONCLUSION: We conclude that there are no significant differences in glenohumeral relationships between genders.