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

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

• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 11 Lewis GS, Armstrong AD. Glenoid spherical orientation and version. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2011; 20 (01) 3-11
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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