Noboru Matsumura1, Kiyohisa Ogawa2, Shuzo Kobayashi3, Satoshi Oki4, Anri Watanabe5, Hiroyasu Ikegami6, Yoshiaki Toyama4. 1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, School of Medicine, Keio University, Tokyo, Japan. Electronic address: noboru18@gmail.com. 2. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Eiju General Hospital, Tokyo, Japan. 3. Kobayashi Clinic, Iwanai, Japan. 4. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, School of Medicine, Keio University, Tokyo, Japan. 5. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Ito Municipal Hospital, Ito, Japan. 6. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Toho University Ohashi Medical Center, Tokyo, Japan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The morphologic features and clinical significance of version of the humeral head and glenoid remain unclear. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the normal values of humeral head version and glenoid version on computed tomography scans and to clarify their features in the normal glenohumeral joint. METHODS: Images for analysis were computed tomography scans of 410 normal shoulders from healthy volunteers. Values of humeral head and glenoid version were measured. In glenoid version measurement, 3-dimensionally corrected slices were reconstructed to eliminate scapular inclination. Differences in humeral head version and glenoid version were assessed between dominant and nondominant shoulders and between men and women. Correlation analyses were also performed in the values of version between dominant and nondominant shoulders and between humeral head version and glenoid version. RESULTS: The values of humeral head retroversion were widely distributed from -2° to 60°, with an average of 26° ± 11°. Average glenoid retroversion was 1° ± 3°, ranging from -9° to 13°. Both humeral head retroversion and glenoid retroversion were significantly higher on the dominant side than on the nondominant side and significantly higher in men than in women. Humeral head version and glenoid version values were well correlated with those of the contralateral shoulder. No correlation was found between humeral head version and glenoid version. CONCLUSIONS: This study found differences in humeral head version and glenoid version by sex and shoulder dominance in a large sample. Both the humeral head and glenoid are thought to be more retroverted in high-demand shoulders.
BACKGROUND: The morphologic features and clinical significance of version of the humeral head and glenoid remain unclear. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the normal values of humeral head version and glenoid version on computed tomography scans and to clarify their features in the normal glenohumeral joint. METHODS: Images for analysis were computed tomography scans of 410 normal shoulders from healthy volunteers. Values of humeral head and glenoid version were measured. In glenoid version measurement, 3-dimensionally corrected slices were reconstructed to eliminate scapular inclination. Differences in humeral head version and glenoid version were assessed between dominant and nondominant shoulders and between men and women. Correlation analyses were also performed in the values of version between dominant and nondominant shoulders and between humeral head version and glenoid version. RESULTS: The values of humeral head retroversion were widely distributed from -2° to 60°, with an average of 26° ± 11°. Average glenoid retroversion was 1° ± 3°, ranging from -9° to 13°. Both humeral head retroversion and glenoid retroversion were significantly higher on the dominant side than on the nondominant side and significantly higher in men than in women. Humeral head version and glenoid version values were well correlated with those of the contralateral shoulder. No correlation was found between humeral head version and glenoid version. CONCLUSIONS: This study found differences in humeral head version and glenoid version by sex and shoulder dominance in a large sample. Both the humeral head and glenoid are thought to be more retroverted in high-demand shoulders.
Authors: Hristo Ivanov Piponov; David Savin; Neal Shah; Domenic Esposito; Brian Schwartz; Vincent Moretti; Benjamin Goldberg Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2016-04-22 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Petr Fulin; Martin Kysilko; David Pokorny; Radek Padr; Nikola Kasprikova; Ivan Landor; Antonin Sosna Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2017-01-14 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Elliot M Greenberg; Alicia Fernandez-Fernandez; J Todd R Lawrence; Philip McClure Journal: Sports Health Date: 2015-09-29 Impact factor: 3.843