Literature DB >> 27282738

A modification to the Walch classification of the glenoid in primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis using three-dimensional imaging.

Michael J Bercik1, Kevin Kruse2, Matthew Yalizis3, Marc-Olivier Gauci4, Jean Chaoui5, Gilles Walch6.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Since Walch and colleagues originally classified glenoid morphology in the setting of glenohumeral osteoarthritis, several authors have reported varying levels of interobserver and intraobserver reliability. We propose several modifications to the Walch classification that we hypothesize will increase interobserver and intraobserver reliability.
METHODS: We propose the addition of the B3 and D glenoids and a more precise definition of the A2 glenoid. The B3 glenoid is monoconcave and worn preferentially in its posterior aspect, leading to pathologic retroversion of at least 15° or subluxation of 70%, or both. The D glenoid is defined by glenoid anteversion or anterior humeral head subluxation. The A2 glenoid has a line connecting the anterior and posterior native glenoid rims that transects the humeral head. Using 3-dimensional computed tomography glenoid reconstructions, 3 evaluators used the original Walch classification and the modified Walch classification to classify 129 nonconsecutive glenoids on 4 separate occasions. Reliabilities were assessed by calculating κ coefficients.
RESULTS: Interobserver reliabilities improved from an average of 0.391 (indicating fair agreement) using the original classification to an average of 0.703 (substantial agreement) using the modified classification. Intraobserver reliabilities improved from an average of 0.605 (moderate agreement) to an average of 0.882 (nearly perfect agreement).
CONCLUSION: When 3-dimensional glenoid reconstructions and the modified Walch classification described herein are used, improved interobserver and intraobserver reliabilities are obtained.
Copyright © 2016 Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Board of Trustees. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Shoulder; Walch classification; arthroplasty; glenoid; idiopathic arthritis; reverse arthroplasty

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27282738     DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2016.03.010

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


  61 in total

1.  One and two-year clinical outcomes for a polyethylene glenoid with a fluted peg: one thousand two hundred seventy individual patients from eleven centers.

Authors:  Frederick A Matsen; Joseph P Iannotti; R Sean Churchill; Lieven De Wilde; T Bradley Edwards; Matthew C Evans; Edward V Fehringer; Gordon I Groh; James D Kelly; Christopher M Kilian; Giovanni Merolla; Tom R Norris; Giuseppe Porcellini; Edwin E Spencer; Anne Vidil; Michael A Wirth; Stacy M Russ; Moni Neradilek; Jeremy S Somerson
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2018-12-03       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  Benefits of a metallic lateralized baseplate prolonged by a long metallic post in reverse shoulder arthroplasty to address glenoid bone loss.

Authors:  Philippe Valenti; Johanna Sekri; Jean Kany; Imen Nidtahar; Jean-David Werthel
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2018-11-30       Impact factor: 3.075

3.  "Shaped" humeral head autograft reverse shoulder arthroplasty : Treatment for primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis with significant posterior glenoid bone loss (B2, B3, and C type).

Authors:  S Harmsen; D Casagrande; T Norris
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 1.087

Review 4.  Classifications in Brief: Walch Classification of Primary Glenohumeral Osteoarthritis.

Authors:  Kiet V Vo; Daniel J Hackett; Albert O Gee; Jason E Hsu
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2017-03-17       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 5.  [Shoulder endoprosthesis in the elderly : Hemiarthroplasty or total shoulder arthroplasty? Anatomic or reverse?]

Authors:  J Kircher
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 1.087

6.  Assessment of anatomical and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty with the scapula-weighted Constant-Murley score.

Authors:  Giovanni Merolla; Ilaria Parel; Andrea Giovanni Cutti; Maria Vittoria Filippi; Paolo Paladini; Giuseppe Porcellini
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2018-08-10       Impact factor: 3.075

7.  Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in patients with type B2, B3, and type C glenoids: comparable clinical outcome to patients without compromised glenoid bone stock-a matched pair analysis.

Authors:  Rafael Loucas; Philipp Kriechling; Marios Loucas; Rany El Nashar; Christian Gerber; Karl Wieser
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2021-06-02       Impact factor: 3.067

8.  Qualitative and quantitative analysis of glenoid bone stock and glenoid version: inter-reader analysis and correlation with rotator cuff tendinopathy and atrophy in patients with shoulder osteoarthritis.

Authors:  Matthew J Siebert; Majid Chalian; Arghavan Sharifi; Parham Pezeshk; Yin Xi; Parker Lawson; Avneesh Chhabra
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2020-01-18       Impact factor: 2.199

9.  Humeral Bone Loss in Revision Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: the Proximal Humeral Arthroplasty Revision Osseous inSufficiency (PHAROS) Classification System.

Authors:  Peter N Chalmers; Anthony A Romeo; Gregory P Nicholson; Pascal Boileau; Jay D Keener; James M Gregory; Dane H Salazar; Robert Z Tashjian
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  Comparison of shoulder replacement to treat osteoarthritis secondary to instability surgery and primary osteoarthritis: a retrospective controlled study of patient outcomes.

Authors:  Giovanni Merolla; Simone Cerciello; Stefano Marenco; Elisabetta Fabbri; Paolo Paladini; Giuseppe Porcellini
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2018-05-12       Impact factor: 3.075

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.