Adrien Jacquot1,2, Marc-Olivier Gauci3, Manuel Urvoy4, François Boux de Casson5, Julien Berhouet6,7, Hoel Letissier8,9. 1. ARTICS, Center of Joint and Sports Surgery, Nancy, France. 2. Clinique Louis Pasteur, Orthopaedic Surgery Unit, Essey-Les-Nancy, France. 3. Orthopedic Surgery, Institut Universitaire Locomoteur et du Sport, Hôpital Pasteur 2, Nice, France. 4. Imascap, Wright Medical, Plouzané, France. 5. Tornier SAS, Wright Medical, Montbonnot-Saint-Martin, France. 6. Faculté de Médecine de Tours - Université de Tours - CHRU Trousseau Service d'Orthopédie Traumatologie, Chambray-Les-Tours, France. 7. Equipe Reconnaissance de Forme et Analyse de l'Image - École d'Ingénieurs Polytechnique Universitaire de Tours - Laboratoire d'Informatique Fondamentale et Appliquée de Tours EA6300 - Université de Tours, Tours, France. 8. Service de Chirurgie Orthopédique et Traumatologique, Hôpital de la Cavale Blanche, Boulevard Tanguy Prigent, Brest, France. 9. LaTIM, INSERM, Technopôle Brest-Iroise, Brest, France.
Abstract
Background: The aim of our study was to evaluate the accuracy of manual determination of the three key points defining the anatomical plane of the scapula, which conditions the reliability of planning software programs based on manual method. Method: We included 82 scapula computed tomography scans (56 pathologic and 26 normal glenoid), excluding truncation and major three-dimensional artifact. Four observers independently picked the three key points for each case. Inter- and intra-observer agreement was calculated for each point, using the intraclass correlation method. The mean error (mm) between the observers was calculated as the diameter of the smallest sphere including the four chosen positions. Results: Lower inter-observer agreement was found for the trigonum superoinferior position and for the glenoid center anteroposterior position. The mean positioning error between the four observers was 6.9 mm for the trigonum point, and error greater than 10 mm was recorded in 25% of the cases. The mean positioning error was 3.5 mm for the glenoid center in altered glenoid, compared to 1.8 mm for normal glenoid. Discussion: Manual determination of an anatomical plane of the scapula suffers from inaccuracy especially due to the variability in trigonum picking, and in a lesser extent, to the variability of glenoid center picking in altered glenoid.
Background: The aim of our study was to evaluate the accuracy of manual determination of the three key points defining the anatomical plane of the scapula, which conditions the reliability of planning software programs based on manual method. Method: We included 82 scapula computed tomography scans (56 pathologic and 26 normal glenoid), excluding truncation and major three-dimensional artifact. Four observers independently picked the three key points for each case. Inter- and intra-observer agreement was calculated for each point, using the intraclass correlation method. The mean error (mm) between the observers was calculated as the diameter of the smallest sphere including the four chosen positions. Results: Lower inter-observer agreement was found for the trigonum superoinferior position and for the glenoid center anteroposterior position. The mean positioning error between the four observers was 6.9 mm for the trigonum point, and error greater than 10 mm was recorded in 25% of the cases. The mean positioning error was 3.5 mm for the glenoid center in altered glenoid, compared to 1.8 mm for normal glenoid. Discussion: Manual determination of an anatomical plane of the scapula suffers from inaccuracy especially due to the variability in trigonum picking, and in a lesser extent, to the variability of glenoid center picking in altered glenoid.
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: Eduardo M Suero; Musa Citak; Darrick Lo; Aaron J Krych; Edward V Craig; Andrew D Pearle Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2012-08-30 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Joseph P Iannotti; Kyle Walker; Eric Rodriguez; Thomas E Patterson; Bong-Jae Jun; Eric T Ricchetti Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2019-03-06 Impact factor: 5.284
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