Sang-Jin Shin1,2, Bong Jae Jun1, Young Won Koh2, Michelle H McGarry1, Thay Q Lee3,4,5. 1. Orthopaedic Biomechanics Laboratory, VA Long Beach Healthcare System (09/151), 5901 East 7th. Street , Long Beach, CA, 90822, USA. 2. Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Korea. 3. Orthopaedic Biomechanics Laboratory, VA Long Beach Healthcare System (09/151), 5901 East 7th. Street , Long Beach, CA, 90822, USA. tqlee@med.va.gov. 4. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA. tqlee@med.va.gov. 5. Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA. tqlee@med.va.gov.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Estimation of anterior glenoid bone loss is important for surgical decision-making. The purpose of this study was to describe a method for estimating anterior glenoid bone loss. METHODS: Thirty-nine cadaveric glenoids were digitized to obtain glenoid geometry. Glenoid bare spot centre, arthroscopic centre, and centre of the inferior glenoid circle relative to the geometric centre were measured. To simulate anterior glenoid bone loss, imaginary sequential osteotomies were created 0°, 22.5°, and 45° to the superior-inferior line in a 3D digitizing programme. Per cent of anterior glenoid bone loss area was calculated as the percentage of defect area relative to the entire area of the glenoid. The relationship between area loss and ratio of bone defect length to the distance from posterior glenoid to various centres was determined. RESULTS: As the ratio of bone defect length to the distance from posterior glenoid to all three centres increased, the per cent area of bone loss increased exponentially. The ratio using the inferior circle centre and arthroscopic centre was highly correlated to the actual glenoid bone loss in all osteotomies (R 2 > 0.90). The ratio using the centre of bare area had the lowest correlation. The ratio of defect length to distance from posterior glenoid to arthroscopic centre greater than 2.4 for 0° and 2.0 for 45° osteotomies results in bone loss area greater than 25 %. The bare area centre had the largest variation. Average bone loss was overestimated when the centre of bare spot was used compared to other centre locations. CONCLUSION: Per cent of anterior glenoid bone loss can be estimated using the ratio of bone defect length to the distance from posterior glenoid rim to the centre of inferior glenoid circle or arthroscopic centre either preoperatively using 3D CT or arthroscopically which can be useful for determining surgical treatment.
PURPOSE: Estimation of anterior glenoid bone loss is important for surgical decision-making. The purpose of this study was to describe a method for estimating anterior glenoid bone loss. METHODS: Thirty-nine cadaveric glenoids were digitized to obtain glenoid geometry. Glenoid bare spot centre, arthroscopic centre, and centre of the inferior glenoid circle relative to the geometric centre were measured. To simulate anterior glenoid bone loss, imaginary sequential osteotomies were created 0°, 22.5°, and 45° to the superior-inferior line in a 3D digitizing programme. Per cent of anterior glenoid bone loss area was calculated as the percentage of defect area relative to the entire area of the glenoid. The relationship between area loss and ratio of bone defect length to the distance from posterior glenoid to various centres was determined. RESULTS: As the ratio of bone defect length to the distance from posterior glenoid to all three centres increased, the per cent area of bone loss increased exponentially. The ratio using the inferior circle centre and arthroscopic centre was highly correlated to the actual glenoid bone loss in all osteotomies (R 2 > 0.90). The ratio using the centre of bare area had the lowest correlation. The ratio of defect length to distance from posterior glenoid to arthroscopic centre greater than 2.4 for 0° and 2.0 for 45° osteotomies results in bone loss area greater than 25 %. The bare area centre had the largest variation. Average bone loss was overestimated when the centre of bare spot was used compared to other centre locations. CONCLUSION: Per cent of anterior glenoid bone loss can be estimated using the ratio of bone defect length to the distance from posterior glenoid rim to the centre of inferior glenoid circle or arthroscopic centre either preoperatively using 3D CT or arthroscopically which can be useful for determining surgical treatment.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bony defect; Cadaver study; Glenoid bone loss; Instability
Authors: Matthew T Provencher; Sanjeev Bhatia; Neil S Ghodadra; Robert C Grumet; Bernard R Bach; Christopher B Dewing; Lance LeClere; Anthony A Romeo Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Anthony M Barcia; Douglas J Rowles; Craig R Bottoni; Travis J Dekker; John M Tokish Journal: Arthroscopy Date: 2013-08-29 Impact factor: 4.772
Authors: Pol E Huysmans; Pieter S Haen; Martin Kidd; Wouter J Dhert; Jaap W Willems Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2006-09-20 Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: Anna Maria Kubicka; Jakub Stefaniak; Przemysław Lubiatowski; Jan Długosz; Marcin Dzianach; Marcin Redman; Janusz Piontek; Leszek Romanowski Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2016-08-05 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Polydoor Emile Huijsmans; Pieter Bas de Witte; Richard V P de Villiers; Derk Willem Wolterbeek; Piet Warmerdam; Niel Ruben Kruger; Joe F de Beer Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2011-05-21 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Matthew T Provencher; Alvin J Detterline; Neil Ghodadra; Anthony A Romeo; Bernard R Bach; Brian J Cole; Nikhil Verma Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2008-03-19 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Stephen A Parada; Matthew C Jones; Mikalyn T DeFoor; B Gage Griswold; Aaron D Roberts; Matthew T Provencher Journal: J Orthop Date: 2020-09-22
Authors: Benjamin Bockmann; Arne Johannes Venjakob; Rolf Gebing; Frank Reichwein; Marthe Hagenacker; Wolfgang Nebelung Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2017-10-23 Impact factor: 4.342