Variability in total shoulder arthroplasty planning software compared to a control CT-derived 3D printed scapula

Abstract

Background

Two techniques exist from which all 3D preoperative planning software for total shoulder arthroplasty are based. One technique is based on measurements constructed on the mid-glenoid and scapular landmarks (Landmark). The second is an automated system using a best-fit sphere technique (Automated). The purpose was to compare glenoid measurements from the two techniques against a control computed tomography-derived 3D printed scapula.

Methods

Computed tomography scans of osteoarthritic shoulders of 20 patients undergoing primary total shoulder arthroplasty were analyzed with both 3D planning software techniques. Measurements from a 3D printed scapula (Scapula) from the true 3D computed tomography scan served as controls. Glenoid version and inclination measurements from each group were blinded and reviewed.

Results

In 65% (Automated) and 45% (Landmark) of cases, either inclination or version varied by 5° or more versus 3D printed scapula. Significant variability in version differences compared to the scapula group existed (p = 0.007). Glenoid version from the Scapula = 13.0° ± 10.6°, Automated = 15.0° ± 13.9°, and Landmark = 12.2° ± 7.8°. Inclination from Scapula = 5.4° ± 7.9°, Automated = 6.1° ± 12.6°, and Landmark = 6.2° ± 9.1°.

Discussion

A high percentage of cases showed discrepancies in glenoid inclination and version values from both techniques. Surgeons should be aware that regardless of software technique, there is variability compared to measurements from a control 3D computed tomography printed scapula.

Keywords

Total shoulder arthroplasty preoperative planning patient-specific instrumentation glenoid version glenoid inclination three-dimensional analysis

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Friedman

Hawthorne

Genez

. The use of computerized tomography in the measurement of glenoid version. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1992; 74: 1032–1037.

Iannotti

Gabriel

Schneck

, et al. The normal glenohumeral relationships. An anatomical study of one hundred and forty shoulders. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1992; 74: 491–500.

Brems

. The glenoid component in total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 1993; 2: 47–54.

Hasan

Leith

Campbell

, et al. Characteristics of unsatisfactory shoulder arthroplasties. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2002; 11: 431–441.

Sabesan

Iannotti

. Glenoid component retroversion is associated with osteolysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2013; 95: e82–e82.

Young

Walch

Pape

, et al. Secondary rotator cuff dysfunction following total shoulder arthroplasty for primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis: results of a multicenter study with more than five years of follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2012; 94: 685–693.

Nyffeler

Jost

Pfirrmann

, et al. Measurement of glenoid version: conventional radiographs versus computed tomography scans. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2003; 12: 493–496.

Bokor

O'Sullivan

Hazan

. Variability of measurement of glenoid version on computed tomography scan. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 1999; 8: 595–598.

Bryce

Davison

Lewis

, et al. Two-dimensional glenoid version measurements vary with coronal and sagittal scapular rotation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2010; 92: 692–699.

10.

Iannotti

Greeson

Downing

, et al. Effect of glenoid deformity on glenoid component placement in primary shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2012; 21: 48–55.

11.

Youderian

Iannotti

. Preoperative planning using advanced 3-dimensional virtual imaging software for glenoid component in anatomic total shoulder replacement. Techniq Shoulder Elbow Surg 2012; 13: 145–150.

12.

Scalise

Codsi

Bryan

, et al. 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: 2438–2445.

13.

Werner

Hudek

Burkhart

, et al. The influence of three-dimensional planning on decision-making in total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2017; 26: 1477–1483.

14.

Jacquot

Gauci

Chaoui

, et al. Proper benefit of a three dimensional pre-operative planning software for glenoid component positioning in total shoulder arthroplasty. Int Orthop 2018; 42: 2897–2906.

15.

Iannotti

Weiner

Rodriguez

, et al. Three-dimensional imaging and templating improve glenoid implant positioning. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2015; 97: 651–658.

16.

Scalise

Bryan

Polster

, et al. Quantitative analysis of glenoid bone loss in osteoarthritis using three-dimensional computed tomography scans. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2008; 17: 328–335.

17.

Kwon

Powell

Yum

, et al. Use of three-dimensional computed tomography for the analysis of the glenoid anatomy. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2005; 14: 85–90.

18.

Group ST. MicroScribe G2 – 3D Digitizer, www.stg-inc.com/microscribe.shtm (2019, accessed 27 March 2019).

19.

Verstraeten

Deschepper

Jacxsens

, et al. Operative guidelines for the reconstruction of the native glenoid plane: an anatomic three-dimensional computed tomography-scan reconstruction study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2012; 21: 1565–1572.

20.

Budge

Lewis

Schaefer

, et al. Comparison of standard two-dimensional and three-dimensional corrected glenoid version measurements. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2011; 20: 577–583.

21.

Lewis

Armstrong

. Glenoid spherical orientation and version. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2011; 20: 3–11.

22.

Jacxsens

Van Tongel

Henninger

, et al. The three-dimensional glenohumeral subluxation index in primary osteoarthritis of the shoulder. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2017; 26: 878–887.

23.

Karelse

Van Tongel

Verstraeten

, et al. Rocking-horse phenomenon of the glenoid component: the importance of inclination. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2015; 24: 1142–1148.

24.

Hoenecke

Jr Hermida

Flores-Hernandez

, et al. Accuracy of CT-based measurements of glenoid version for total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2010; 19: 166–171.

25.

Chalmers

Salazar

Chamberlain

, et al. Radiographic characterization of the B2 glenoid: the effect of computed tomographic axis orientation. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2017; 26: 258–264.

26.

Boileau

Cheval

Gauci

, et al. Automated three-dimensional measurement of glenoid version and inclination in arthritic shoulders. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2018; 100: 57–65.

27.

Denard

Provencher

Lädermann

, et al.

Version and inclination obtained with 3-dimensional planning in total shoulder arthroplasty: do different programs produce the same results?

JSES Open Access 2018; 2(4): 200–204. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jses.2018.06.003.

28.

Gregory

Sankey

Augereau

, et al. Accuracy of glenoid component placement in total shoulder arthroplasty and its effect on clinical and radiological outcome in a retrospective, longitudinal, monocentric open study. PloS One 2013; 8: e75791–e75791.

29.

Sabesan

Callanan

Youderian

, et al. 3D CT assessment of the relationship between humeral head alignment and glenoid retroversion in glenohumeral osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2014; 96: e64–e64.