Comparação de métodos bidimensionais manuais e tridimensionais automatizados de avaliação da morfologia da articulação do ombro por imagens de tomografia computadorizada

Resumo

Objetivo Avaliar a concordância interobservador na medida dos parâmetros anatômicos do ombro utilizando métodos manuais de tomografia computadorizada (TC) bidimensional (2D) não formatada no plano da escápula e compará-los à medida automatizada obtida com o programa Blueprint (Wright Medical, Memphis, TN, Estados Unidos), que utiliza imagens tridimensionais (3D) reconstruídas.

Métodos Este é um estudo transversal com a utilização de imagens de TC 2D de 38 pacientes com diferentes diagnósticos. Os parâmetros anatômicos foram medidos por métodos manuais - versão, método de Friedman et al., e método do vault; inclinação, por método de Maurer et al., e subluxação do ombro segundo Walch et al. As mensurações foram realizadas por cinco cirurgiões qualificados e independentes, e comparados aos parâmetros obtidos pelo programa automatizado Blueprint.

Resultados Foram observadas diferenças significativas entre a versão de medida manual obtida pelo método de Friedman et al. e a versão automatizada. Os valores médios de inclinação não apresentaram diferenças estatisticamente significativas entre os métodos. A média observada de subluxação teve diferenças significativas entre as análises realizadas pelo método automatizado e pelos cirurgiões.

Conclusão As medidas manuais de versão e inclinação da glenoide realizadas por cirurgiões experientes são eficazes, e o método da abóbada é superior ao de Friedman et al. na análise de deformidades glenoidais graves.

Palavras-chave

artroplastia - substituição do ombro - tomografia computadorizada por raios X

Trabalho desenvolvido no Centro de Cirurgia de Ombro e Cotovelo, Instituto Nacional de Traumatologia e Ortopedia, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil.

Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 22. September 2023

Angenommen: 05. April 2024

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
08. Juli 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