<scp>D</scp>oes the innate relative size of the humeral head and glenoid affect the risk of anterior shoulder instability?

Willigenburg, Nienke W.; Bouma, R A; Scholtes, V. A. B.; Hulst, Vpm van der; Deurzen, Dfp van; Bekerom, Mpj van den

doi:10.1177/1758573218805099

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 19 publications

(23 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The inferior and superior glenoid margins were obtained by preselecting the inferior and superior points of the glenoid contour points and extracting the ones having the maximum z-coordinates of the 2 preselections ( Figure 4 f ). Humeral head diameter: The humeral head diameter was measured as the best circle-fit on the axial view of the CT. 29 , 32 …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Similar scapular morphology in patients with dynamic and static posterior shoulder instability

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background There is evidence that specific variants of scapular morphology are associated with dynamic and static posterior shoulder instability. To this date, observations regarding glenoid and/or acromial variants were analyzed independently, with two-dimensional imaging or without comparison with a healthy control group. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to analyze and describe the three-dimensional (3D) shape of the scapula in healthy and in shoulders with static or dynamic posterior instability using 3D surface models and 3D measurement methods. Methods In this study, 30 patients with unidirectional posterior instability and 20 patients with static posterior humeral head subluxation (static posterior instability, Walch B1) were analyzed. Both cohorts were compared with a control group of 40 patients with stable, centered shoulders and without any clinical symptoms. 3D surface models were obtained through segmentation of computed tomography images and 3D measurements were performed for glenoid (version and inclination) and acromion (tilt, coverage, height). Results Overall, the scapulae of patients with dynamic and static instability differed only marginally among themselves. Compared with the control group, the glenoid was 2.5° ( P = .032), respectively, 5.7° ( P = .001) more retroverted and 2.9° ( P = .025), respectively, 3.7° ( P = .014) more downward tilted in dynamic, respectively, static instability. The acromial roof of dynamic instability was significantly higher and on average 6.2° ( P = .007) less posterior covering with an increased posterior acromial height of +4.8mm ( P = .001). The acromial roof of static instability was on average 4.8° ( P = .041) more externally rotated (axial tilt), 7.3° ( P = .004) flatter (sagittal tilt), 8.3° ( P = .001) less posterior covered with an increased posterior acromial height of +5.8 mm (0.001). Conclusion The scapula of shoulders with dynamic and static posterior instability is characterized by an increased glenoid retroversion and an acromion that is shorter posterolaterally, higher, and more horizontal in the sagittal plane. All these deviations from the normal scapula values were more pronounced in static posterior instability.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Humeral head diameter: The humeral head diameter was measured as the best circle-fit on the axial view of the CT. 29 , 32 …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Similar scapular morphology in patients with dynamic and static posterior shoulder instability

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While MRI is mainly used to assess soft tissue (such as the labrum, capsule, and rotator cuff), CT is used more frequently in pathologies of bone tissue. In the literature, morphological measurements of the glenohumeral joint were made with CT in some studies and with MR in some studies [6,12,20,21]. In our study, measurements were made with an MRI.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Effect of Glenohumeral Joint Bone Morphology on Anterior Shoulder Instability: A Case-Control Study

Kıvrak

Ulusoy²

2023

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: Glenohumeral joint compatibility and bone morphology are among the most critical factors in shoulder stabilization. Our study investigated the effect of the bone morphological structure of the shoulder joint on anterior shoulder dislocation. Methods: In our study, people with a history of shoulder dislocation were selected as the patient group. In the control group, patients with shoulder MRIs for any reason and no history of shoulder dislocation were included. Those who have a fracture around the shoulder, a congenital deformity in the shoulder region, arthrosis of the shoulder, those whose MRI images cannot be measured, those with Hill-Sachs lesion, connective tissue diseases (such as Ehler Danlos), who are unsure of their diagnosis, or who have incomplete and incorrect suspicious information in their patient file have been excluded. In our retrospective case-control study, glenoid width, glenoid height, glenoid’s height-to-width ratio, glenoid’s depth, glenoid’s version, glenoid’s inclination, humerus radius of curvature, glenoid radius of curvature, and bony shoulder stability ratio were measured on MRI images of the patients. The sample size for each group was determined using a power analysis method. The intra-class coefficient (ICC) assessed interobserver and intraobserver reliability. Results: A total of 80 patients, 40 each in the control and patient groups, were included in the study. Glenoid width was measured as 24.27 ± 1.58 in the patient group, 25.61 ± 1.72 in the control group; glenoid height was as measured 36.49 ± 2.26 in the patient group, 36.74 ± 1.99 in the control group; height-to-width ratio was measured as 1.5 ± 0.08 in the patient group, 1.43 ± 0.05 in the control group; glenoid version was as measured −0.53 ± 1.17 in the patient group, −1.44 ± 1.1 in the control group; glenoid inclination was measured as 1.44 ± 3.93 patient group, 2.64 ± 3.81 in the control group; glenoid depth was measured as 1.69 ± 0.41 in the patient group, 2.12 ± 0.53 in the control group; humerus radius of curvature was measured as 29.70 ± 6.76 in the patient group, 24.98 ± 3.22 in the control group; glenoid axial radius of curvature was measured as 61.8 ± 13.52 in the patient group, 52.53 ± 15.69 in the control group; glenoid coronal radius of curvature was measured as 43.01 ± 7.47 in the patient group, 37.74 ± 6.89 in the control group; the bony shoulder stability ratio was measured as 0.35 ± 0.06 in the patient group and 0.44 ± 0.06 in the control group. In the statistical evaluation, the glenoid width (p < 0.001), the glenoid height/width ratio (p < 0.001), the glenoid version (p < 0.001), the depth of the glenoid cavity (p < 0.001), and the radius of curvature measurements of the humeral head (p < 0.001) and the glenoid (axial, p < 0.007; coronal, p < 0.001) were found to be significantly different. Glenoid height and inclination were similar in both groups. Conclusions: The detection of bone morphological features that constitute risk factors for shoulder dislocations plays an important role in preventing shoulder dislocations. In this way, it provides essential data on personalized rehabilitation programs and treatment selection for recurrent dislocations.

show abstract

“…We measured the glenoid length in the anteroposterior projection to avoid inaccuracy in identifying the superior and inferior borders of the glenoid as we noticed to occur in the lateral projection. A similar method to measure the length of the glenoid has been used on 2D CT scans [ 20 ]. 3D CT is accurate in predicting the true anatomy of the glenoid [ 21 ] and can accurately predict native glenoid width [ 7 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Glenoid Dimensions Between 3D Computed Tomography and 3D Printing

Yiannakopoulos,

Vlastos,

Koutserimpas

et al. 2024

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Glenoid dimensions can be measured in vivo with various imaging methods including two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging scans. Printing of three-dimensional (3D) models of the glenoid using imaging data is feasible and can be used to better understand skeletal trauma and complex skeletal deformations such as glenoid bone loss in patients with shoulder instability. The purpose of this study was to compare measurements of glenoid dimensions on 3D CT scan reconstructed models and 3D printed models of the glenoid. Methods: CT scans from 62 young, male adults acquired for non-trauma-related causes were evaluated. Following volume rendering, a stereolithography model of each scapula was constructed and a 3D model was printed. Additionally, 3D CT models of each glenoid were reconstructed using dedicated software. Measurements of the maximum glenoid height and width were performed on both the 3D printed and the 3D reconstructed models. To assess intra- and interrater reliability, measurements of 15 glenoids were repeated by two observers after three weeks. The measurements of the 3D printed and 3D reconstructed models were compared. Results: Inter- and intra-rater reliability was excellent or perfect. Analysis of height and width values demonstrated a strong correlation of 0.91 and 0.89 respectively (p<0.001) for both the 3D printed models and the 3D reconstructed models. There was a strong correlation between the height and width, but no significant difference between the glenoid width and height in both models. There was no statistical significance between height and width when measurements on the two models were examined (p=0.12 and 0.23 respectively). Conclusion: 3D printed glenoid models can be used to evaluate the glenoid dimensions, width, and height, as they provide similar accuracy with 3D reconstructed models as provided from CT scan data.

show abstract

Does the innate relative size of the humeral head and glenoid affect the risk of anterior shoulder instability?

Cited by 4 publications

References 19 publications

Similar scapular morphology in patients with dynamic and static posterior shoulder instability

Similar scapular morphology in patients with dynamic and static posterior shoulder instability

Effect of Glenohumeral Joint Bone Morphology on Anterior Shoulder Instability: A Case-Control Study

Comparison of Glenoid Dimensions Between 3D Computed Tomography and 3D Printing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About