Study of the variability of scapular inclination and the glenoid version - considerations for preoperative planning: clinical-radiological study

Fulín, P; Kysilko, Martin; Pokorný, D; Pádr, Radek; Kaspříková, Nikola; Landor, I; Sosna, A

doi:10.1186/s12891-016-1381-4

Cited by 15 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, the results of this study are consistent with previous findings that CT scan orientation impacts measurement inconsistency 9-15 . Version measurements using the Friedman method differed by 0.4° to 5.3° relative to other SPBAs in the individual groups.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Three-Dimensional Scapular Border Method for Glenoid Version Measurements

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Variations among methods to measure glenoid version have created uncertainty regarding which method provides the most consistent measurements of morphology. Greater deformity may also make accurate depiction of the native morphology more challenging. This study examined 4 current methods (Friedman, corrected Friedman, Ganapathi-Iannotti, and Matsumura) and an experimental scapular border-derived coordinate system method, to compare measurement inconsistencies between methods and reference systems and assess the impact of glenoid deformity on measured glenoid version. Methods: Three-dimensional scapulae were created from computed tomography (CT) scans of 74 shoulders that had undergone arthroplasty (28 A2, 22 B2, 10 B3, and 14 C glenoids) and 34 shoulders that had not undergone arthroplasty. Glenoid version measurements were made in Mimics using the 4 methods. For the experimental method, scapulae were reconstructed, and 3 orthogonal global coordinate planes (GCPs) were derived from the medial and lateral borders. Version was measured as the angle between the sagittal reference plane and an anterior-posterior glenoid vector. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated for the Friedman and corrected Friedman methods. Inconsistencies were assessed for all methods using the interquartile range, mean and standard deviation, and repeated-measures analysis of variance. Concordance correlation coefficients (CCCs) were calculated to assess agreement among the methods. Results: Scapular plane-based methods (experimental, Friedman, and corrected Friedman) yielded an average version between −10° and −12°, with average measurement differences among these methods of <2°. Vault methods (Ganapathi-Iannotti and Matsumura) overestimated or underestimated version by an average of 5° to 7° compared with scapular plane-based methods, and showed significant differences of >12° when compared with each other. Scapular plane-based methods maintained consistency with increasing deformity. Conclusions: The other methods of version measurement using the scapular planes as the reference were highly comparable with the corrected Friedman method. However, when the reference plane was the glenoid vault, version measurements were inconsistent with scapular plane-based methods, which is attributed to differences in the reference systems. In surgical planning, the coordinate system utilized will impact version measurements, which can result in variations in the planned surgical solutions. Additionally, as glenoid deformity increases, this variation resulting from the utilization of different coordinate systems is magnified.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…However, this simplistic method does not account for the orientation of the CT image, causing unwarranted variability in version measurements. The corrected Friedman method, using a scapular plane derived from 3 points, was designed to reduce inconsistencies by correcting images to their "true" axial positioning [9][10][11][12][13][14][15] .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Three-Dimensional Scapular Border Method for Glenoid Version Measurements

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Correct evaluation of the glenoid version is important for many shoulder pathologies, and primarily arthritic glenohumeral joint and posterior instability [12][13][14][15][16][17]. Specifically, in anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty and reverse shoulder arthroplasty, glenoid preparation made by evaluation of the glenoid version is the most important stage [6,7,[18][19][20][21]. In several studies related to glenoid version values, although there were differences in the lower and upper values, the glenoid joint surface was generally evaluated as retrovert [4,8,22].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although the glenoid version is generally defined as retrovert, in some studies, antevert values, or a value close to 0, have been evaluated as normal [2][3][4][5][6][7]. This can be attributed to the measurements of the glenoid version being affected by several parameters [1][2][3][4][7][8][9]. Some of these are the twist effect within the surface of the glenoid joint, the coronal and sagittal position of the scapula, and the glenoid level at which the slice was taken.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is the version angle of the glenoid different in bone and cartilage? An MRI study

Devecı¹,

Dura²,

Cılız³

et al. 2019

Turk J Med Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background/aim: To determine whether or not there is a difference between the version of the bone and cartilage surfaces of the glenoid. Axial magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) slices were examined in order to evaluate the measurements taken based on both the cartilage and bone joint surfaces. Materials and methods: A retrospective evaluation was made of the MRI scans of 182 patients. All of the reviewers independently measured the glenoid version angles of all of the patients from 1-182. The process was then repeated, with each reviewer taking second measurements of the angles from 1-182. Pearson correlation coefficient analysis was applied to evaluate the interaction and relationships between the measurements taken from the bone and cartilage. The intra-and interobserver interclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were assessed. Analysis of variance was applied to determine any interobserver significant differences. Results: The mean glenoid version was determined as-3.58 ± 4.08° in the bone-based measurements and-5.81 ± 4.30° in the cartilagebased measurements. The cartilage-and bone-based measurements were found to have inter-and intraobserver reliability. A statistically significant difference was observed between the mean cartilage-based version and the mean bone-based version. Changes in the cartilage-and bone-based measurements were correlated; however, this change was not linear. Conclusion: The cartilage-based version showed a significant difference from the bone-based version. Therefore, in the preoperative planning and evaluation of glenoid-based pathologies, it would be more appropriate to evaluate both the bone and cartilage surface on MRI.

show abstract

“…Hence, the diagnosis and treatment of many shoulder diseases are related to the glenoid cavity. Numerous studies have established that understanding the anatomical characteristics of the glenoid cavity is conducive to choosing the proper therapies for shoulder dislocation, scapular fractures and glenohumeral arthritis [1][2][3][4] and especially for improving the surgical treatment for Bankart injury or anterior shoulder dislocation 5 . The morphology of the glenoid cavity should be considered when selecting the ideal anchor insertion angle for a Bankart repair 6 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%