Literature DB >> 32010231

Automated three-dimensional measurements of version, inclination, and subluxation.

Dave R Shukla1, Richard J McLaughlin1, Julia Lee1, Ngoc Tram V Nguyen1, Joaquin Sanchez-Sotelo1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Preoperative planning software has been developed to measure glenoid version, glenoid inclination, and humeral head subluxation on computed tomography (CT) for shoulder arthroplasty. However, most studies analyzing the effect of glenoid positioning on outcome were done prior to the introduction of planning software. Thus, measurements obtained from the software can only be extrapolated to predict failure provided they are similar to classic measurements. The purpose of this study was to compare measurements obtained using classic manual measuring techniques and measurements generated from automated image analysis software.
METHODS: Ninety-five two-dimensional computed tomography scans of shoulders with primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis were measured for version according to Friedman method, inclination according to Maurer method, and subluxation according to Walch method. DICOM files were loaded into an image analysis software (Blueprint, Wright Medical) and the output was compared with values obtained manually using a paired sample t-test.
RESULTS: Average manual measurements included 13.8° version, 13.2° inclination, and 56.2% subluxation. Average image analysis software values included 17.4° version (3.5° difference, p < 0.0001), 9.2° inclination (3.9° difference, p < 0.001), and 74.2% for subluxation (18% difference, p < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: Glenoid version and inclination values from the software and manual measurement on two-dimensional computed tomography were relatively similar, within approximately 4°. However, subluxation measurements differed by approximately 20%.
© 2019 The British Elbow & Shoulder Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Walch classification; glenohumeral arthritis; glenoid inclination; glenoid version; humeral head subluxation; shoulder arthroplasty

Year:  2019        PMID: 32010231      PMCID: PMC6974883          DOI: 10.1177/1758573218825480

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Shoulder Elbow        ISSN: 1758-5732


  26 in total

1.  Variability of measurement of glenoid version on computed tomography scan.

Authors:  D J Bokor; M D O'Sullivan; G J Hazan
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  1999 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.019

2.  The effect of sagittal rotation of the glenoid on axial glenoid width and glenoid version in computed tomography scan imaging.

Authors:  Daniel J Gross; Petar Golijanin; Guillaume D Dumont; Stephen A Parada; Bryan G Vopat; Steven E Reinert; Anthony A Romeo; C D R Matthew T Provencher
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2015-09-28       Impact factor: 3.019

3.  Prosthetic positioning in total shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  Joseph P Iannotti; Edwin E Spencer; Uwe Winter; Daren Deffenbaugh; Gerald Williams
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2005 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 3.019

4.  Three-dimensional planning and use of patient-specific guides improve glenoid component position: an in vitro study.

Authors:  Gilles Walch; Peter S Vezeridis; Pascal Boileau; Pierric Deransart; Jean Chaoui
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2014-08-31       Impact factor: 3.019

5.  Longitudinal observational study of total shoulder replacements with cement: fifteen to twenty-year follow-up.

Authors:  Patric Raiss; Thomas Bruckner; Markus Rickert; Gilles Walch
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2014-02-05       Impact factor: 5.284

6.  Measurements of three-dimensional glenoid erosion when planning the prosthetic replacement of osteoarthritic shoulders.

Authors:  A Terrier; J Ston; X Larrea; A Farron
Journal:  Bone Joint J       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 5.082

7.  Patient-specific glenoid guides provide accuracy and reproducibility in total shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  M O Gauci; P Boileau; M Baba; J Chaoui; G Walch
Journal:  Bone Joint J       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 5.082

8.  Do patients return to sports and work after total shoulder replacement surgery?

Authors:  Matthias Bülhoff; Peter Sattler; Thomas Bruckner; Markus Loew; Felix Zeifang; Patric Raiss
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2014-11-18       Impact factor: 6.202

9.  Two-dimensional glenoid version measurements vary with coronal and sagittal scapular rotation.

Authors:  Chris D Bryce; Andrew C Davison; Gregory S Lewis; Li Wang; Donald J Flemming; April D Armstrong
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 5.284

10.  Patterns of loosening of polyethylene keeled glenoid components after shoulder arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis: results of a multicenter study with more than five years of follow-up.

Authors:  Gilles Walch; Allan A Young; Pascal Boileau; Markus Loew; Dominique Gazielly; Daniel Molé
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2012-01-18       Impact factor: 5.284

View more
  3 in total

1.  Commercial 3-dimensional imaging programs are not created equal: version and inclination measurement positions vary among preoperative planning software.

Authors:  Robert A Waltz; Annalise M Peebles; Justin J Ernat; Stephanie K Eble; Patrick J Denard; Anthony A Romeo; Petar Golijanin; Scott M Liegel; Matthew T Provencher
Journal:  JSES Int       Date:  2022-02-11

2.  Anatomic Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: Component Size Prediction with 3-Dimensional Pre-Operative Digital Planning.

Authors:  Michael T Freehill; Jack W Weick; Brent A Ponce; Asheesh Bedi; Derek Haas; Bethany Ruffino; Chris Robbins; Alexander M Prete; John G Costouros; Jon Jp Warner
Journal:  J Shoulder Elb Arthroplast       Date:  2022-05-06

3.  A novel method for localization of the maximum glenoid bone defect during reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  Graeme T Harding; Aaron J Bois; Martin J Bouliane
Journal:  JSES Int       Date:  2021-04-28
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.