Can We Predict the Humerus Stem Component Size Required to Achieve Rotational Stability in Metaphyseal Stability Concept?

Overview

Journal JSES Int

Date 2022 Nov 10

PMID 36353421

Authors

Manuel Urvoy

Will Blakeney

Patric Raiss

George S Athwal

Thais Dutra Vieira

Gilles Walch

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Implant manufacturers typically offer several sizes of a humeral stem for shoulder arthroplasty so that time zero fixation can be achieved with the optimal size. Stem size can be templated preoperatively but is definitively determined intraoperatively. The purpose of this study was to determine if preoperatively acquired parameters, including patient demographics and imaging, could be used to reliably predict intraoperative humeral stem size.

Methods: A cohort of 290 patients that underwent shoulder arthroplasty (116 anatomic and 174 reverse) was analyzed to create a regression formula to predict intraoperative stem size. The initial cohort was separated into train and test groups (randomly selected 80% and 20%, respectively). Patient demographics, anatomical measurements, and statistical shape model parameters determined from a preoperative shoulder arthroplasty planning software program were used for multilinear regression. The implant used for all cases was a short-stemmed metaphyseal-fit prosthesis.

Results: Metaphyseal bone density, humeral statistical shape model parameters, and humeral intramedullary canal diameter were identified as highly predictive of intraoperative final humeral prosthesis size. On the train group, a coefficient of determination R of 0.63 was obtained for the multilinear regression equation combining these parameters. When analyzing the cohort for the prediction of stem size in the test group, 95% were within plus or minus one size of that used during surgery.

Conclusion: Preoperative criteria such as humeral geometry and proximal humeral bone density can be combined in a single multilinear equation to predict intraoperative humeral stem size within one size variation. Embedding the surgeon's decision-making process into an automated algorithm potentially allows this process to be applied across the surgical community. Predicting intraoperative decisions such as humeral stem size also has potential implications for the management of implant stocks for both manufacturers and health-care facilities.

References

Mather J, MacDermid J, Faber K, Athwal G . Proximal humerus cortical bone thickness correlates with bone mineral density and can clinically rule out osteoporosis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012; 22(6):732-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2012.08.018. View

Lee C, Davis S, Lane C, Koonce R, Hartman A, Ball K . Reliability and accuracy of digital templating for the humeral component of total shoulder arthroplasty. Shoulder Elbow. 2016; 7(1):29-35. PMC: 4935101. DOI: 10.1177/1758573214550838. View

Inoue K, Suenaga N, Oizumi N, Yamaguchi H, Miyoshi N, Taniguchi N . Humeral bone resorption after reverse shoulder arthroplasty using uncemented stem. JSES Int. 2020; 4(1):138-143. PMC: 7075776. DOI: 10.1016/j.jses.2019.11.007. View

Lucas R, Hsu J, Gee A, Neradilek M, Matsen 3rd F . Impaction autografting: bone-preserving, secure fixation of a standard humeral component. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016; 25(11):1787-1794. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2016.03.008. View

Raiss P, Schnetzke M, Wittmann T, Kilian C, Edwards T, Denard P . Postoperative radiographic findings of an uncemented convertible short stem for anatomic and reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018; 28(4):715-723. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2018.08.037. View

Hacker S, Boorman R, Lippitt S, Matsen 3rd F . Impaction grafting improves the fit of uncemented humeral arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2003; 12(5):431-5. DOI: 10.1016/s1058-2746(03)00053-3. View

Buzzell J, Lutton D, Shyr Y, Neviaser R, Lee D . Reliability and accuracy of templating the proximal humeral component for shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009; 18(5):728-33. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2008.11.015. View

BLOOM R . A comparative estimation of the combined cortical thickness of various bone sites. Skeletal Radiol. 1980; 5(3):167-70. DOI: 10.1007/BF00347258. View

Nagels J, Stokdijk M, Rozing P . Stress shielding and bone resorption in shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2003; 12(1):35-9. DOI: 10.1067/mse.2003.22. View

10.

Wirth M, Lim M, Southworth C, Loredo R, Kaar T, Rockwood Jr C . Compaction bone-grafting in prosthetic shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007; 89(1):49-57. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.E.01069. View

11.

Mauler F, Langguth C, Schweizer A, Vlachopoulos L, Gass T, Luthi M . Prediction of normal bone anatomy for the planning of corrective osteotomies of malunited forearm bones using a three-dimensional statistical shape model. J Orthop Res. 2017; 35(12):2630-2636. DOI: 10.1002/jor.23576. View

12.

Raiss P, Edwards T, Deutsch A, Shah A, Bruckner T, Loew M . Radiographic changes around humeral components in shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014; 96(7):e54. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.M.00378. View

13.

Poltaretskyi S, Chaoui J, Mayya M, Hamitouche C, Bercik M, Boileau P . Prediction of the pre-morbid 3D anatomy of the proximal humerus based on statistical shape modelling. Bone Joint J. 2017; 99-B(7):927-933. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.99B7.BJJ-2017-0014. View

14.

Cerveri P, Belfatto A, Manzotti A . Predicting Knee Joint Instability Using a Tibio-Femoral Statistical Shape Model. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2020; 8:253. PMC: 7182437. DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2020.00253. View

15.

Blakeney W, Urvoy M, Chaoui J, Raiss P, Athwal G, Walch G . Development and assessment of 3-dimensional computed tomography measures of proximal humeral bone density: a comparison to established 2-dimensional measures and intraoperative findings in patients undergoing shoulder arthroplasty. JSES Int. 2021; 5(6):1008-1013. PMC: 8569005. DOI: 10.1016/j.jseint.2021.07.015. View

16.

Heutinck P, Knoops P, Florez N, Biffi B, Breakey W, James G . Statistical shape modelling for the analysis of head shape variations. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2021; 49(6):449-455. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2021.02.020. View

17.

Tingart M, Apreleva M, von Stechow D, Zurakowski D, Warner J . The cortical thickness of the proximal humeral diaphysis predicts bone mineral density of the proximal humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2003; 85(4):611-7. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620x.85b4.12843. View

18.

Abdic S, Athwal G, Wittmann T, Walch G, Raiss P . Short stem humeral components in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: stem alignment influences the neck-shaft angle. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2020; 141(2):183-188. DOI: 10.1007/s00402-020-03424-4. View

19.

Vlachopoulos L, Luthi M, Carrillo F, Gerber C, Szekely G, Furnstahl P . Restoration of the Patient-Specific Anatomy of the Proximal and Distal Parts of the Humerus: Statistical Shape Modeling Versus Contralateral Registration Method. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2018; 100(8):e50. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.17.00829. View