Anne Karelse1, Alexander Van Tongel2, Tom Verstraeten3, Didier Poncet4, Lieven F De Wilde2. 1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology, Ghent University Hospital, Gent, Belgium. Electronic address: anne.karelse@telenet.be. 2. Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology, Ghent University Hospital, Gent, Belgium. 3. Department of Radiology, Ghent University Hospital, Gent, Belgium. 4. Biomedical Engineering Consultant, Lyon, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Abnormal glenoid version positioning has been recognized as a cause of glenoid component failure caused by the rocking horse phenomenon. In contrast, the importance of the glenoid inclination has not been investigated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The computed tomography scans of 152 healthy shoulders were evaluated. A virtual glenoid component was positioned in 2 different planes: the maximum circular plane (MCP) and the inferior circle plane (ICP). The MCP was defined by the best fitting circle of the most superior point of the glenoid and 2 points at the lower glenoid rim. The ICP was defined by the best fitting circle on the rim of the inferior quadrants. The inclination of both planes was measured as the intersection with the scapular plane. We defined the force vector of the rotator force couple and calculated the magnitude of the shear force vector on a virtual glenoid component in both planes during glenohumeral abduction. RESULTS: The inclination of the component positioned in the MCP averaged 95° (range, 84°-108°) and for the ICP averaged 111° (range, 94°-126°). A significant reduction in shear forces was calculated for the glenoid component in the ICP vs the MCP: 98% reduction in 60° of abduction to 49% reduction in 90° of abduction. CONCLUSION: Shear forces are significantly higher when the glenoid component is positioned in the MCP compared with the ICP, and this is more pronounced in early abduction. Positioning the glenoid component in the inferior circle might reduce the risk of a rocking horse phenomenon.
BACKGROUND:Abnormal glenoid version positioning has been recognized as a cause of glenoid component failure caused by the rocking horse phenomenon. In contrast, the importance of the glenoid inclination has not been investigated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The computed tomography scans of 152 healthy shoulders were evaluated. A virtual glenoid component was positioned in 2 different planes: the maximum circular plane (MCP) and the inferior circle plane (ICP). The MCP was defined by the best fitting circle of the most superior point of the glenoid and 2 points at the lower glenoid rim. The ICP was defined by the best fitting circle on the rim of the inferior quadrants. The inclination of both planes was measured as the intersection with the scapular plane. We defined the force vector of the rotator force couple and calculated the magnitude of the shear force vector on a virtual glenoid component in both planes during glenohumeral abduction. RESULTS: The inclination of the component positioned in the MCP averaged 95° (range, 84°-108°) and for the ICP averaged 111° (range, 94°-126°). A significant reduction in shear forces was calculated for the glenoid component in the ICP vs the MCP: 98% reduction in 60° of abduction to 49% reduction in 90° of abduction. CONCLUSION: Shear forces are significantly higher when the glenoid component is positioned in the MCP compared with the ICP, and this is more pronounced in early abduction. Positioning the glenoid component in the inferior circle might reduce the risk of a rocking horse phenomenon.
Authors: Benjamin C Service; Jason E Hsu; Jeremy S Somerson; Stacy M Russ; Frederick A Matsen Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2017-07-05 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Travis J Dekker; W Jeffrey Grantham; Lucca Lacheta; Brandon T Goldenberg; Rony-Orijit Dey Hazra; Dylan R Rakowski; Grant J Dornan; Marilee P Horan; Peter J Millett Journal: JSES Int Date: 2022-03-18
Authors: Sarav S Shah; Shawn Sahota; Patrick J Denard; Matthew T Provencher; Bradford O Parsons; Robert U Hartzler; Joshua S Dines Journal: Shoulder Elbow Date: 2019-12-02
Authors: Tyler W Knighton; Peter N Chalmers; Hema J Sulkar; Klevis Aliaj; Robert Z Tashjian; Heath B Henninger Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2022-05-10 Impact factor: 3.507
Authors: Heath B Henninger; Garrett V Christensen; Carolyn E Taylor; Jun Kawakami; Bradley S Hillyard; Robert Z Tashjian; Peter N Chalmers Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2020-04 Impact factor: 4.755