Multilevel Glenoid Morphology and Retroversion Assessment in Walch B2 and B3 Types

Overview

Journal Skeletal Radiol

Specialties Orthopedics
Radiology

Date 2018 Oct 18

PMID 30328484

Citations 4

Authors

Mohammad Samim

Mandeep Virk

David Mai

Kamran Munawar

Joseph Zuckerman

Soterios Gyftopoulos

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: A major factor that impacts the long-term outcome and complication rates of total shoulder arthroplasty is the preoperative posterior glenoid bone loss quantified by glenoid retroversion. The purpose of this study was to assess if glenoid retroversion varies significantly at different glenoid heights in Walch B2 and B3 glenoids.

Materials And Methods: Patients with B2 and B3 glenoid types were included following retrospective review of 386 consecutive CT shoulder studies performed for arthroplasty preoperative planning. True axial CT reconstructions were created using a validated technique. Two readers independently measured the glenoid retroversion angles according to the Friedman method using the "intermediate" glenoid at three glenoid heights: 75% (upper), 50% (equator), and 25% (lower). The variances between the three levels for a given patient were calculated.

Results: Twenty-nine B2 and 8 B3 glenoid types were included. There was no significant difference in variance of glenoid version among the three levels in B2 or B3 groups. The mean variance in retroversion degree between equator-lower, upper-equator, and upper-lower glenoid was - 0.4, 0.3, and - 0.2 for B2; and - 0.2, 1.9, and 1.9 for B3 glenoid, respectively. The level of inter-reader agreement was fair to good for variance at equator-lower, and good to excellent for upper-equator and upper-lower glenoid.

Conclusions: Glenoid version can be accurately measured at any level between 25 and 75% of glenoid height for Walch B2 and B3. We recommend that the glenoid equator be used as the reference to assure consistent and reliable version measurements in this group of patients.

Citing Articles

Analysis and 3D correction of glenoid dysplasia with metal hemi-wedge base plate augment: short-term radiographic outcomes.

Guehring T, Navas L, Westrich J, Zimmerer A, Schmidt S, Barrientos M Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2023; 143(8):4763-4772.

PMID: 36705760 PMC: 10374695. DOI: 10.1007/s00402-023-04781-6.

The use of preoperative planning to decrease costs and increase efficiency in the OR.

Sheth B, Lavin A, Martinez C, Sabesan V JSES Int. 2022; 6(3):454-458.

PMID: 35572445 PMC: 9091925. DOI: 10.1016/j.jseint.2022.02.004.

Glenoid Version Assessment When the CT Field of View Does Not Permit the Friedman Method: The Robertson Method.

Robertson D, Sharma G, McMahon P, Karas S Orthop J Sports Med. 2022; 10(5):23259671221083589.

PMID: 35571972 PMC: 9096205. DOI: 10.1177/23259671221083589.

Highlights of the Annual Scientific Meeting of the Society of Skeletal Radiology (SSR) 2018, Austin, Texas, USA.

Fox M, Bancroft L Skeletal Radiol. 2018; 48(1):1-4.

PMID: 30267103 DOI: 10.1007/s00256-018-3080-8.

References

Walch G, Badet R, Boulahia A, Khoury A . Morphologic study of the glenoid in primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis. J Arthroplasty. 1999; 14(6):756-60. DOI: 10.1016/s0883-5403(99)90232-2. View

Inui H, Sugamoto K, Miyamoto T, Machida A, Hashimoto J, Nobuhara K . Evaluation of three-dimensional glenoid structure using MRI. J Anat. 2001; 199(Pt 3):323-8. PMC: 1468334. DOI: 10.1046/j.1469-7580.2001.19930323.x. View

Edwards T, Kadakia N, Boulahia A, Kempf J, Boileau P, Nemoz C . A comparison of hemiarthroplasty and total shoulder arthroplasty in the treatment of primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis: results of a multicenter study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2003; 12(3):207-13. DOI: 10.1016/s1058-2746(02)86804-5. View

Edwards T, Boulahia A, Kempf J, Boileau P, Nemoz C, Walch G . Shoulder arthroplasty in patients with osteoarthritis and dysplastic glenoid morphology. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2004; 13(1):1-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2003.09.011. View

Friedman R, Hawthorne K, Genez B . The use of computerized tomography in the measurement of glenoid version. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1992; 74(7):1032-7. View

Sperling J, Cofield R, Rowland C . Minimum fifteen-year follow-up of Neer hemiarthroplasty and total shoulder arthroplasty in patients aged fifty years or younger. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2004; 13(6):604-13. DOI: 10.1016/S1058274604001296. View

Kwon Y, Powell K, Yum J, Brems J, Iannotti J . Use of three-dimensional computed tomography for the analysis of the glenoid anatomy. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005; 14(1):85-90. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2004.04.011. View

Martin S, Zurakowski D, Thornhill T . Uncemented glenoid component in total shoulder arthroplasty. Survivorship and outcomes. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005; 87(6):1284-92. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.C.00947. View

Neyton L, Walch G, Nove-Josserand L, Edwards T . Glenoid corticocancellous bone grafting after glenoid component removal in the treatment of glenoid loosening. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006; 15(2):173-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2005.07.010. View

10.

Farron A, Terrier A, Buchler P . Risks of loosening of a prosthetic glenoid implanted in retroversion. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006; 15(4):521-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2005.10.003. View

11.

Bohsali K, Wirth M, Rockwood Jr C . Complications of total shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006; 88(10):2279-92. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.F.00125. View

12.

Clavert P, Millett P, Warner J . Glenoid resurfacing: what are the limits to asymmetric reaming for posterior erosion?. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007; 16(6):843-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2007.03.015. View

13.

Scalise J, Bryan J, Polster J, Brems J, Iannotti J . Quantitative analysis of glenoid bone loss in osteoarthritis using three-dimensional computed tomography scans. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008; 17(2):328-35. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2007.07.013. View

14.

Scalise J, Codsi M, Bryan J, Iannotti J . The three-dimensional glenoid vault model can estimate normal glenoid version in osteoarthritis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008; 17(3):487-91. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2007.09.006. View

15.

Hoenecke Jr H, Hermida J, Dembitsky N, Patil S, DLima D . Optimizing glenoid component position using three-dimensional computed tomography reconstruction. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008; 17(4):637-41. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2007.11.021. View

16.

Scalise J, Codsi M, Bryan J, Brems J, Iannotti J . The influence of three-dimensional computed tomography images of the shoulder in preoperative planning for total shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008; 90(11):2438-45. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.G.01341. View

17.

Fox T, Cil A, Sperling J, Sanchez-Sotelo J, Schleck C, Cofield R . Survival of the glenoid component in shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009; 18(6):859-63. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2008.11.020. View

18.

Nowak D, Bahu M, Gardner T, Dyrszka M, Levine W, Bigliani L . Simulation of surgical glenoid resurfacing using three-dimensional computed tomography of the arthritic glenohumeral joint: the amount of glenoid retroversion that can be corrected. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009; 18(5):680-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2009.03.019. View

19.

Hoenecke Jr H, Hermida J, Flores-Hernandez C, DLima D . Accuracy of CT-based measurements of glenoid version for total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009; 19(2):166-71. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2009.08.009. View

20.

Kasten P, Pape G, Raiss P, Bruckner T, Rickert M, Zeifang F . Mid-term survivorship analysis of a shoulder replacement with a keeled glenoid and a modern cementing technique. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010; 92(3):387-92. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.92B3.23073. View