Is the Version Angle of the Glenoid Different in Bone and Cartilage? An MRI Study

Overview

Journal Turk J Med Sci

Specialty General Medicine

Date 2019 Sep 25

PMID 31549497

Authors

Alper Deveci

Yahya Can Dura

Deniz Sozmen Ciliz

Guzelali Ozdemir

Enver Kilic

Erman Ceyhan

Burak Kulakoglu

Sualp Turan

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

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 cartilage-based 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.

References

Piponov H, Savin D, Shah N, Esposito D, Schwartz B, Moretti V . Glenoid version and size: does gender, ethnicity, or body size play a role?. Int Orthop. 2016; 40(11):2347-2353. DOI: 10.1007/s00264-016-3201-8. View

van de Bunt F, Pearl M, Lee E, 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):1627-35. PMC: 4575378. DOI: 10.1007/s00256-015-2207-4. 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

Staeubli H, Bosshard C, Porcellini P, Rauschning W . Magnetic resonance imaging for articular cartilage: cartilage-bone mismatch. Clin Sports Med. 2002; 21(3):417-33, viii-ix. DOI: 10.1016/s0278-5919(02)00029-7. View

Yian E, Werner C, Nyffeler R, Pfirrmann C, Ramappa A, Sukthankar A . Radiographic and computed tomography analysis of cemented pegged polyethylene glenoid components in total shoulder replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005; 87(9):1928-36. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.D.02675. View

Weishaupt D, Zanetti M, Nyffeler R, Gerber C, Hodler J . Posterior glenoid rim deficiency in recurrent (atraumatic) posterior shoulder instability. Skeletal Radiol. 2000; 29(4):204-10. DOI: 10.1007/s002560050594. View

Zale C, Pace G, Lewis G, Chan J, Kim H . Interdepartmental imaging protocol for clinically based three-dimensional computed tomography can provide accurate measurement of glenoid version. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018; 27(7):1297-1305. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2017.11.020. View

Mullaji A, BEDDOW F, Lamb G . CT measurement of glenoid erosion in arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1994; 76(3):384-8. View

Fulin P, Kysilko M, Pokorny D, Padr R, Kasprikova N, Landor I . Study of the variability of scapular inclination and the glenoid version - considerations for preoperative planning: clinical-radiological study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2017; 18(1):16. PMC: 5237552. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-016-1381-4. View

10.

Humphrey C, Kelly 2nd J, Norris T . Optimizing glenosphere position and fixation in reverse shoulder arthroplasty, Part Two: The three-column concept. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008; 17(4):595-601. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2008.05.038. View

11.

Habermeyer P, Magosch P, Luz V, Lichtenberg S . Three-dimensional glenoid deformity in patients with osteoarthritis: a radiographic analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006; 88(6):1301-7. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.E.00622. View

12.

Iannotti J, Norris T . Influence of preoperative factors on outcome of shoulder arthroplasty for glenohumeral osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003; 85(2):251-8. DOI: 10.2106/00004623-200302000-00011. View

13.

Churchill R, Brems J, Kotschi H . Glenoid size, inclination, and version: an anatomic study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2001; 10(4):327-32. DOI: 10.1067/mse.2001.115269. View

14.

Daggett M, Werner B, Collin P, Gauci M, Chaoui J, Walch G . Correlation between glenoid inclination and critical shoulder angle: a radiographic and computed tomography study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015; 24(12):1948-53. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2015.07.013. View

15.

Hopkins A, Hansen U, Amis A, Emery R . The effects of glenoid component alignment variations on cement mantle stresses in total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2004; 13(6):668-75. DOI: 10.1016/S1058274604001399. View

16.

Shapiro T, McGarry M, Gupta R, Lee Y, Lee T . Biomechanical effects of glenoid retroversion in total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006; 16(3 Suppl):S90-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2006.07.010. View

17.

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

18.

Brewer B, Wubben R, Carrera G . Excessive retroversion of the glenoid cavity. A cause of non-traumatic posterior instability of the shoulder. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1986; 68(5):724-31. View

19.

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

20.

Frankle M, Teramoto A, Luo Z, Levy J, Pupello D . Glenoid morphology in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: classification and surgical implications. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009; 18(6):874-85. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2009.02.013. View