Proper glenoid position in total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) is important. However, traditional glenoid version (GV) measurements overestimate retroversion on radiographs (XR) and computed tomography (CT).
The fulcrum axis (FA) uses palpable surface landmarks and may be useful as an intra-operative guide. Also, the FA has not yet been validated on XR or CT in an arthritic population.
Methods
Four observers measured FA and GV on the XR, CT and three-dimensional CT (3DCT) of 40 patients who underwent TSA at a single institution from 2009 to 2015. Reliability and accuracy of FA and GV were calculated for XR and CT, using 3DCT as the gold standard.
Results
The mean FA and GV were 7.768° and 18.910° on XR; 6.23° and 12.920° on CT; and 8.100° and 7.740° on 3DCT, respectively. FA and GV were significantly different for XR and CT (p < 0.001) but not for 3DCT (p = 0.725). The inter-rater reliability, intra-rater reliability and accuracy of FA were not significantly different from GV and were 0.929 to 0.948, 0.779 to 0.974 and 0.674 to 0.705, respectively. However, the absolute difference of FA was closer to the gold standard (3DCT) than GV for XR (0.330° versus 11.172°) and CT (1.871° versus 5.178°) (p < 0.001).
Conclusions
FA showed comparable reliability and accuracy to GV. However, FA more accurately reflected the gold standard.
GregoryTMSankeyAAugereauBet al.Accuracy of glenoid component component placement in total shoulder arthroplasty and its effect on clinical and radiological outcome in a retrospective, longitudinal, monocentric open study. PLoS ONE2013; 8: e75791–e75791.
2.
Moska MJ, Duckworth D, Matsen FA. Contrasting the position of prosthetic joint surfaces in successful and failed shoulder arthroplasties. Paper presented at the Seventh International Congress on Shoulder Surgery, Sydney, Australia, 1998:5–8.
3.
FarronATerrierABuchlerP. Risks of loosening of a prosthetic glenoid implanted in retroversion. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2006; 15: 521–526.
4.
HopkinsARHansenUNAmisAAEmeryR. The effects of glenoid component alignment variations on cement mantle stresses in total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2007; 16: 90–95.
5.
NyffelerRWSheikhRAtkinsonTSJacobHAFavrePGerberC. Effects of glenoid component version on humeral head displacement and joint reaction forces: an experimental study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2006; 15: 625–629.
6.
ShapiroTAMcGarryMHGuptaRLeeYSLeeTQ. Biomechanical effects of glenoid retroversion in total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2007; 16(3 Suppl): S90–S95.
7.
MatsumaraNOgawaKKobayashiSet al.Morphologic features of humeral head and glenoid version in the normal glenohumeral joint. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2014; 23: 1724–1730.
8.
MoineauGLevigneCBoileauPYoungAWalchG. The French Society for Shoulder and Elbow (SOFEC). Three-dimensional measurement of arthritis glenoid cavity morphology: feasibility and reproducibility. Orthop Trauma2012; 985: 5139–5145.
9.
FriedmanRJHawthornKBGenezBM. The use of computerized tomography in the measurement of glenoid version. J Bone Joint Surg Am1992; 74: 1032–1037.
10.
RichettiETHendelMDCollinsDNIanottiJP. Is premorbid glenoid anatomy altered in patients with glenohumeral arthritis. Clin Orthop Relat Res2013; 471: 2932–2939.
11.
SabesanVJCallananMYouderianAIannottiJP. 3D CR assessment of the relationship between humeral head alignment and glenoid retroversion in glenohumeral osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am2014; 96: e64–e64.
12.
TerrierAStonJLarreaXFarronA. Measurements of three-dimensional glenoid erosion when planning the prosthetic replacement of osteoarthritic shoulders. Bone Joint J2014; 96B: 513–518.
13.
HoJCSabesanVJIannottiJP. Glenoid component retroversion is associated with osteolysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am2013; 95: e82–e82.
14.
HoJCYouderianADavidsonIUBryanJIannottiJP. Accuracy and reliability of postoperative radiographic measurements of glenoid anatomy and relationships in patients with total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2013; 22: 1068–1077.
15.
BudgeMDLewisGSShaeferECoquiaSFlemmingDJArmstrongAD. Comparison of standard two-dimensional and three-dimensional corrected glenoid version measurements. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2001; 20: 577–583.
16.
BryceCDDavisonACLewisGSWangLFlemmingDJArmstrongAD. Two-dimensional glenoid version measurements vary with coronal and sagittal scapular rotation. J Bone Joint Surg Am2010; 92: 692–699.
17.
BokorDO’SullivanMHazanG. Variability of measurement of glenoid version on computed tomography scan. J Shoulder Elbow Surg1999; 8: 595–598.
18.
RaymondACMcCannPASarangiPP. Magnetic resonance scanning vs axillary radiography in the assessment of glenoid version for osteoarthritis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2013; 22: 1078–1083.
19.
HoeneckeHRJrHermidaJCFlores-HernandezCDLimaDD. Accuracy of CT-based measurements of glenoid version for total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2010; 19: 166–171.
20.
IannottiJPRicchettiETRodriguezEJBryanJA. Development and validation of a new method of 3-dimensional assessment of glenoid and humeral component position after total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2013; 22: 1413–1422.
21.
NyffelerRWJostBPfirrmannCWAGerberC. Measurement of glenoid version: conventional radiographs versus computed tomography scans. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2003; 12: 493–496.
22.
BouchaibJClavertPKempfJ-FKahnJ-L. Morphological analysis of the glenoid version in the axial plane according to age. Surg Radiol Anat2014; 36: 579–585.
23.
RouleauDMKidderJFPons-VillanuevaJDynamiditisSDefrancoMWalchG. Glenoid version: How to measure it? Validity of different methods in two-dimensional computed tomography scans. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2010; 19: 1230–1237.
24.
BraunsteinVKirchoffCOckertBet al.Use of the fulcrum axis improves the accuracy of true anteroposterior radiographs of the shoulder. J Bone Joint Surg (Br)2009; 91B: 1049–1053.
25.
BraunsteinVKornerMBrunnerUMutschkerWBiberthalerPWiedemannE. The fulcrum axis: a new method for determining glenoid version. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2008; 17: 819–824.
26.
LeSVConradBWrightTW. Application of the fulcrum axis to estimate the central scapular axis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2014; 23: 1143–1149.
27.
WalchGBadetRBoulahiaAKhouryA. Morphologic study of the glenoid in primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis. J Arthroplasty1999; 14: 756–760.
28.
RispoliDMSperlingJWAthwalGSet al.Humeral head replacement for the treatment of osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am2006; 88: 2637–2644.
29.
OhlXNerotCSaddikiRDehouxE. Shoulder hemi arthroplasty radiological and clinical outcomes at more that two years follow-up. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res2010; 96: 208–215.
HendelMDBryansJABarsoumWKet al.Comparison of patient-specific instruments with standard surgical instruments in determining glenoid component position – a randomized prospective clinical trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am2012; 94: 2167–2175.
32.
WalchGVezeridisPSBoileauPDeransartPChaouiJ. Three-dimensional planning and use of patient-specific guides improve glenoid component position: an in vitro study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2015; 24: 302–309.
