Sarav S Shah1, Shawn Sahota2, Patrick J Denard3, Matthew T Provencher4, Bradford O Parsons5, Robert U Hartzler6, Joshua S Dines2. 1. New England Baptist Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 2. Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA. 3. Southern Oregon Orthopedics, Medford, OR, USA. 4. The Steadman Clinic, Vail, CO, USA. 5. Leni and Peter W. May Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA. 6. The San Antonio Orthopaedic Group, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Two techniques exist from which all 3D preoperative planning software for total shoulder arthroplasty are based. One technique is based on measurements constructed on the mid-glenoid and scapular landmarks (Landmark). The second is an automated system using a best-fit sphere technique (Automated). The purpose was to compare glenoid measurements from the two techniques against a control computed tomography-derived 3D printed scapula. METHODS: Computed tomography scans of osteoarthritic shoulders of 20 patients undergoing primary total shoulder arthroplasty were analyzed with both 3D planning software techniques. Measurements from a 3D printed scapula (Scapula) from the true 3D computed tomography scan served as controls. Glenoid version and inclination measurements from each group were blinded and reviewed. RESULTS: In 65% (Automated) and 45% (Landmark) of cases, either inclination or version varied by 5° or more versus 3D printed scapula. Significant variability in version differences compared to the scapula group existed (p = 0.007). Glenoid version from the Scapula = 13.0° ± 10.6°, Automated = 15.0° ± 13.9°, and Landmark = 12.2° ± 7.8°. Inclination from Scapula = 5.4° ± 7.9°, Automated = 6.1° ± 12.6°, and Landmark = 6.2° ± 9.1°. DISCUSSION: A high percentage of cases showed discrepancies in glenoid inclination and version values from both techniques. Surgeons should be aware that regardless of software technique, there is variability compared to measurements from a control 3D computed tomography printed scapula.
BACKGROUND: Two techniques exist from which all 3D preoperative planning software for total shoulder arthroplasty are based. One technique is based on measurements constructed on the mid-glenoid and scapular landmarks (Landmark). The second is an automated system using a best-fit sphere technique (Automated). The purpose was to compare glenoid measurements from the two techniques against a control computed tomography-derived 3D printed scapula. METHODS: Computed tomography scans of osteoarthritic shoulders of 20 patients undergoing primary total shoulder arthroplasty were analyzed with both 3D planning software techniques. Measurements from a 3D printed scapula (Scapula) from the true 3D computed tomography scan served as controls. Glenoid version and inclination measurements from each group were blinded and reviewed. RESULTS: In 65% (Automated) and 45% (Landmark) of cases, either inclination or version varied by 5° or more versus 3D printed scapula. Significant variability in version differences compared to the scapula group existed (p = 0.007). Glenoid version from the Scapula = 13.0° ± 10.6°, Automated = 15.0° ± 13.9°, and Landmark = 12.2° ± 7.8°. Inclination from Scapula = 5.4° ± 7.9°, Automated = 6.1° ± 12.6°, and Landmark = 6.2° ± 9.1°. DISCUSSION: A high percentage of cases showed discrepancies in glenoid inclination and version values from both techniques. Surgeons should be aware that regardless of software technique, there is variability compared to measurements from a control 3D computed tomography printed scapula.
Authors: Tom R G M Verstraeten; Ellen Deschepper; Matthijs Jacxsens; Stig Walravens; Brecht De Coninck; Lieven F De Wilde Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2012-01-23 Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: Joseph P Iannotti; Scott Weiner; Eric Rodriguez; Naveen Subhas; Thomas E Patterson; Bong Jae Jun; Eric T Ricchetti Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2015-04-15 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Young W Kwon; Kimerly A Powell; Jae Kwang Yum; John J Brems; Joseph P Iannotti Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2005 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 3.019
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
Authors: Matthijs Jacxsens; Alexander Van Tongel; Heath B Henninger; Robert Z Tashjian; Lieven De Wilde Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2016-11-30 Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: Anne Karelse; Alexander Van Tongel; Tom Verstraeten; Didier Poncet; Lieven F De Wilde Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2015-03-11 Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: Jason J Scalise; Jason Bryan; Joshua Polster; John J Brems; Joseph P Iannotti Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2008-01-22 Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: Thomas M Gregory; Andrew Sankey; Bernard Augereau; Eric Vandenbussche; Andrew Amis; Roger Emery; Ulrich Hansen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-10-08 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Yuqing Chen; Sarav S Shah; Alexander M Roche; Lambert T Li; Matthew Chilton; Benjamin Saks; Meghan Macaskill; Glen Ross Journal: J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev Date: 2022-08-05