Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Rev Bras Ortop (Sao Paulo) 2024; 59(04): e590-e598
DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1786821
Artigo Original
Ombro e Cotovelo

Comparison of Manual Two-dimensional and Automated Three-dimensional Methods of Assessing Shoulder Joint Morphology through Computed Tomography Images

Article in several languages: português | English
Geraldo da Rocha Motta Filho 
1   Centro de Cirurgia de Ombro e Cotovelo, Instituto Nacional de Traumatologia e Ortopedia, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil
2   Divisão de Traumatologia e Ortopedia (DITRO), Instituto Nacional de Traumatologia e Ortopedia, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil
,
Marcus Vinícius Amaral
1   Centro de Cirurgia de Ombro e Cotovelo, Instituto Nacional de Traumatologia e Ortopedia, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil
2   Divisão de Traumatologia e Ortopedia (DITRO), Instituto Nacional de Traumatologia e Ortopedia, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil
,
Márcio Cohen
1   Centro de Cirurgia de Ombro e Cotovelo, Instituto Nacional de Traumatologia e Ortopedia, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil
,
Marcio Schiefer de Sá Carvalho
1   Centro de Cirurgia de Ombro e Cotovelo, Instituto Nacional de Traumatologia e Ortopedia, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil
,
Raphael Soares da Fonseca
1   Centro de Cirurgia de Ombro e Cotovelo, Instituto Nacional de Traumatologia e Ortopedia, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil
,
Ana Carolina Leal de Oliveira
3   Divisão de Ensino e Pesquisa, Instituto Nacional de Traumatologia e Ortopedia, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil
› Author Affiliations Financial Support The authors declare that they have received no financial support from agencies in the public, private, or non-profit sectors to conduct the present study.
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective To evaluate the interobserver agreement in the measurement of anatomical parameters of the shoulder using manual methods of two-dimensional (2D) computed tomography (CT) unformatted in the plane of the scapula and to compare them with the automated measurement obtained through the Blueprint (Wright Medical, Memphis, TN, United States) software, which uses reconstructed three-dimensional (3D) images.

Methods The present is a cross-sectional study in which 2D CT images of 38 patients with different diagnoses were used. The anatomical parameters were measured by the manual methods described by Friedman et al., the glenoid vault method, the Maurer et al. method, and shoulder subluxation according to Walch et al., by five independent qualified surgeons and compared with the parameters obtained through the Blueprint automated software.

Results Significant differences were found between the manual measurement version obtained through the Friedman et al. method and the automated version. The mean values found for inclination did not show statistically significant differences among the methods. The mean value found for subluxation showed significant differences between the average observed in the analyses performed by the automated method and those performed by the surgeons.

Conclusion The manual measurements of glenoid version and inclination performed by experienced surgeons are effective, and the vault method is superior to the Friedman et al. method in the analysis of severe glenoid deformities.

Work carried out at the Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Center, Instituto Nacional de Traumatologia e Ortopedia, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.




Publication History

Received: 22 September 2023

Accepted: 05 April 2024

Article published online:
08 July 2024

© 2024. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda.
Rua do Matoso 170, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20270-135, Brazil

 

  • Referências

  • 1 Walch G, Mesiha M, Boileau P. et al. Three-dimensional assessment of the dimensions of the osteoarthritic glenoid. Bone Joint J 2013; 95-B (10) 1377-1382
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Shapiro TA, McGarry MH, Gupta R, Lee YS, Lee TQ. Biomechanical effects of glenoid retroversion in total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2007; 16 (3, Suppl) S90-S95
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Iannotti JP, Greeson C, Downing D, Sabesan V, Bryan JA. Effect of glenoid deformity on glenoid component placement in primary shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2012; 21 (01) 48-55
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Walch G, Badet R, Boulahia A, Khoury A. Morphologic study of the glenoid in primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis. J Arthroplasty 1999; 14 (06) 756-760
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Ganapathi A, McCarron JA, Chen X, Iannotti JP. Predicting normal glenoid version from the pathologic scapula: a comparison of 4 methods in 2- and 3-dimensional models. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2011; 20 (02) 234-244
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Hoenecke Jr HR, Hermida JC, Flores-Hernandez C, D'Lima DD. Accuracy of CT-based measurements of glenoid version for total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2010; 19 (02) 166-171
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Scalise JJ, Bryan J, Polster J, Brems JJ, Iannotti JP. Quantitative analysis of glenoid bone loss in osteoarthritis using three-dimensional computed tomography scans. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2008; 17 (02) 328-335
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Iannotti J, Baker J, Rodriguez E. et al. Three-dimensional preoperative planning software and a novel information transfer technology improve glenoid component positioning. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2014; 96 (09) e71
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Boileau P, Cheval D, Gauci MO, Holzer N, Chaoui J, Walch G. Automated Three-Dimensional Measurement of Glenoid Version and Inclination in Arthritic Shoulders. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2018; 100 (01) 57-65
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Gross DJ, Golijanin P, Dumont GD. et al. The effect of sagittal rotation of the glenoid on axial glenoid width and glenoid version in computed tomography scan imaging. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2016; 25 (01) 61-68
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Lewis GS, Armstrong AD. Glenoid spherical orientation and version. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2011; 20 (01) 3-11
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Friedman RJ, Hawthorne KB, Genez BM. The use of computerized tomography in the measurement of glenoid version. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1992; 74 (07) 1032-1037
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Matsumura N, Ogawa K, Ikegami H, Collin P, Walch G, Toyama Y. Computed tomography measurement of glenoid vault version as an alternative measuring method for glenoid version. J Orthop Surg Res 2014; 9 (01) 17
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Maurer A, Fucentese SF, Pfirrmann CW. et al. Assessment of glenoid inclination on routine clinical radiographs and computed tomography examinations of the shoulder. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2012; 21 (08) 1096-1103
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 RadiAnt® DICOM Viewer, Poznan, Poland. Available from: www.radiantviewer.com/pt-br
  • 16 van de Bunt F, Pearl ML, Lee EK, Peng L, Didomenico P. Glenoid version by CT scan: an analysis of clinical measurement error and introduction of a protocol to reduce variability. Skeletal Radiol 2015; 44 (11) 1627-1635
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Favard L, Berhouet J, Walch G, Chaoui J, Lévigne C. Superior glenoid inclination and glenoid bone loss : Definition, assessment, biomechanical consequences, and surgical options. Orthopade 2017; 46 (12) 1015-1021
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Werner BS, Hudek R, Burkhart KJ, Gohlke F. The influence of three-dimensional planning on decision-making in total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2017; 26 (08) 1477-1483
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Rosenthal Y, Rettig SA, Virk MS, Zuckerman JD. Impact of preoperative 3-dimensional planning and intraoperative navigation of shoulder arthroplasty on implant selection and operative time: a single surgeon's experience. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2020; 29 (12) 2564-2570
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Hartzler RU, Denard PJ, Griffin JW, Werner BC, Romeo AA. Surgeon acceptance of an initial 3D glenoid preoperative plan: rates and risk factors. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2021; 30 (04) 787-794
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Iannotti JP, Walker K, Rodriguez E, Patterson TE, Jun BJ, Ricchetti ET. Accuracy of 3-Dimensional Planning, Implant Templating, and Patient-Specific Instrumentation in Anatomic Total Shoulder Arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2019; 101 (05) 446-457
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Berhouet J, Jacquot A, Walch G, Deransart P, Favard L, Gauci MO. Preoperative planning of baseplate position in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: Still no consensus on lateralization, version and inclination. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2022; 108 (03) 103115
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Shukla DR, McLaughlin RJ, Lee J, Nguyen NTV, Sanchez-Sotelo J. Automated three-dimensional measurements of version, inclination, and subluxation. Shoulder Elbow 2020; 12 (01) 31-37
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Raiss P, Walch G, Wittmann T, Athwal GS. Is preoperative planning effective for intraoperative glenoid implant size and type selection during anatomic and reverse shoulder arthroplasty?. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2020; 29 (10) 2123-2127
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Denard PJ, Provencher MT, Lädermann A, Romeo AA, Parsons BO, Dines JS. Version and inclination obtained with 3-dimensional planning in total shoulder arthroplasty: do different programs produce the same results?. JSES Open Access 2018; 2 (04) 200-204
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Chalmers PN, Salazar D, Chamberlain A, Keener JD. Radiographic characterization of the B2 glenoid: the effect of computed tomographic axis orientation. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2017; 26 (02) 258-264
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Bercik MJ, Kruse II K, Yalizis M, Gauci MO, Chaoui J, Walch G. A modification to the Walch classification of the glenoid in primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis using three-dimensional imaging. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2016; 25 (10) 1601-1606
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Reid JJ, Kunkle BF, Greene AT, Eichinger JK, Friedman RJ. Variability and reliability of 2-dimensional vs. 3-dimensional glenoid version measurements with 3-dimensional preoperative planning software. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2022; 31 (02) 302-309
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Choi CH, Kim HC, Kang D, Kim JY. Comparative study of glenoid version and inclination using two-dimensional images from computed tomography and three-dimensional reconstructed bone models. Clin Shoulder Elbow 2020; 23 (03) 119-124
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Jacxsens M, Van Tongel A, Willemot LB, Mueller AM, Valderrabano V, De Wilde L. Accuracy of the glenohumeral subluxation index in nonpathologic shoulders. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2015; 24 (04) 541-546
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar