The aim of our study was to evaluate the accuracy of manual determination of the three key points defining the anatomical plane of the scapula, which conditions the reliability of planning software programs based on manual method.
Method
We included 82 scapula computed tomography scans (56 pathologic and 26 normal glenoid), excluding truncation and major three-dimensional artifact. Four observers independently picked the three key points for each case. Inter- and intra-observer agreement was calculated for each point, using the intraclass correlation method. The mean error (mm) between the observers was calculated as the diameter of the smallest sphere including the four chosen positions.
Results
Lower inter-observer agreement was found for the trigonum superoinferior position and for the glenoid center anteroposterior position. The mean positioning error between the four observers was 6.9 mm for the trigonum point, and error greater than 10 mm was recorded in 25% of the cases. The mean positioning error was 3.5 mm for the glenoid center in altered glenoid, compared to 1.8 mm for normal glenoid.
Discussion
Manual determination of an anatomical plane of the scapula suffers from inaccuracy especially due to the variability in trigonum picking, and in a lesser extent, to the variability of glenoid center picking in altered glenoid.
KircherJWiedemannMMagoschP ; et al.Improved accuracy of glenoid positioning in total shoulder arthroplasty with intraoperative navigation: a prospective-randomized clinical study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2009; 18: 515–520.
2.
NashikkarPSScholesCJHaberMD. Computer navigation re-creates planned glenoid placement and reduces correction variability in total shoulder arthroplasty: an in vivo case-control study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2019; 28: e398–e409.
3.
NguyenDFerreiraLMBrownhillJR ; et al.Improved accuracy of computer assisted glenoid implantation in total shoulder arthroplasty: an in-vitro randomized controlled trial. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2009; 18: 907–914.
4.
VerborgtODe SmedtTVanheesM ; et al.Accuracy of placement of the glenoid component in reversed shoulder arthroplasty with and without navigation. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2011; 20: 21–26.
5.
IannottiJPWalkerKRodriguezE ; et al.Accuracy of 3-dimensional planning, implant templating, and patient-specific instrumentation in anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am2019; 101: 446–457.
6.
JacquotAGauciM-OChaouiJ ; et al.Proper benefit of a three dimensional pre-operative planning software for glenoid component positioning in total shoulder arthroplasty. Int Orthop2018; 42: 2897–2906.
7.
VerborgtOHachemAIEidK ; et al.Accuracy of patient-specific guided implantation of the glenoid component in reversed shoulder arthroplasty. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res2018; 104: 767–772.
8.
SueroEMCitakMLoD ; et al.Use of a custom alignment guide to improve glenoid component position in total shoulder arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc2013; 21: 2860–2866.
9.
DallalanaRJMcMahonRAEastB ; et al.Accuracy of patient-specific instrumentation in anatomic and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. Int J Shoulder Surg2016; 10: 59–66.
10.
FarronATerrierABüchlerP. Risks of loosening of a prosthetic glenoid implanted in retroversion. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2006; 15: 521–526.
11.
ShapiroTAMcGarryMHGuptaR ; et al.Biomechanical effects of glenoid retroversion in total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2007; 16: S90–S95.
12.
NyffelerRWJostBPfirrmannCWA ; et al.Measurement of glenoid version: conventional radiographs versus computed tomography scans. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2003; 12: 493–496.
13.
FriedmanRJHawthorneKBGenezBM. The use of computerized tomography in the measurement of glenoid version. J Bone Joint Surg Am1992; 74: 1032–1037.
14.
BryceCDDavisonACLewisGS ; et al.Two-dimensional glenoid version measurements vary with coronal and sagittal scapular rotation. J Bone Joint Surg Am2010; 92: 692–699.
15.
BokorDJO’SullivanMDHazanGJ. Variability of measurement of glenoid version on computed tomography scan. J Shoulder Elbow Surg1999; 8: 595–598.
16.
BudgeMDLewisGSSchaeferE ; et al.Comparison of standard two-dimensional and three-dimensional corrected glenoid version measurements. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2011; 20: 577–583.
17.
BoileauPChevalDGauciM-O ; et al.Automated three-dimensional measurement of glenoid version and inclination in arthritic shoulders. J Bone Joint Surg2018; 100: 57–65.
18.
De WildeLFVerstraetenTSpeeckaertW ; et al.Reliability of the glenoid plane. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2010; 19: 414–422.
19.
HoeneckeHRHermidaJCFlores-HernandezC ; et al.Accuracy of CT-based measurements of glenoid version for total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2010; 19: 166–171.
20.
MatsumuraNOgawaKKobayashiS ; et al.Morphologic features of humeral head and glenoid version in the normal glenohumeral joint. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2014; 23: 1724–1730.
21.
KwonYWPowellKAYumJK ; et al.Use of three-dimensional computed tomography for the analysis of the glenoid anatomy. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2005; 14: 85–90.
WalchGBadetRBoulahiaA ; et al.Morphologic study of the glenoid in primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis. J Arthroplasty1999; 14: 756–760.
24.
BercikMJKruseKYalizisM ; et al.A modification to the Walch classification of the glenoid in primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis using three-dimensional imaging. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2016; 25: 1601–1606.
25.
FavardLLautmannSSirveauxF; et al.Hemiarthroplasty versus reverse arthroplasty in the treatment of osteoarthritis with massive rotator cuff tear. In: WalchGBoileauPMoleD (eds). 2000 Shoulder prostheses. Two to ten years follow-up, Paris: Sauramps Médical, 2001, pp. 261–268.
Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Academic Press.
28.
DenardPJProvencherMTLädermannA ; et al.Version and inclination obtained with 3-dimensional planning in total shoulder arthroplasty: do different programs produce the same results?JSES Open Access2018; 2: 200–204.
29.
ChalmersPNSalazarDChamberlainA ; et al.Radiographic characterization of the B2 glenoid: is inclusion of the entirety of the scapula necessary?J Shoulder Elbow Surg2017; 26: 855–860.
30.
MoineauGLevigneCBoileauP ; et al.Three-dimensional measurement method of arthritic glenoid cavity morphology: feasibility and reproducibility. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res2012; 98: S139–S145.
31.
WalchGVezeridisPSBoileauP ; et al.Three-dimensional planning and use of patient-specific guides improve glenoid component position: an in vitro study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2015; 24: 302–309.
32.
WalchGMesihaMBoileauP ; et al.Three-dimensional assessment of the dimensions of the osteoarthritic glenoid. Bone Joint J2013; 95-B: 1377–1382.
