Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, PA 17033, USA.
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010 May;92(5):1188-94. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.I.00131.
The three-dimensional vault geometry beneath the glenoid face reduces to a narrow width in many individuals, creating a risk of perforation of the glenoid component pegs or keel in total shoulder arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to introduce the concept of a centerline of the glenoid vault determined by computed optimization and to compare this centerline geometry against two existing surgical methods for orienting the glenoid component.
Thirty-four subject-specific computer models of three-dimensional scapular geometry were created from computed tomography scans. The glenoid vault centerline was calculated by slicing the vault into a series of cross sections, determining the center of each section, and fitting a centerline with use of optimization. Vault centerline orientations were compared with the drill-line orientations determined by two surgical techniques, the face plane technique, which drills perpendicular to the glenoid face, and the neutralization technique, which drills parallel to the scapular body resulting in 0 degrees of glenoid version. Distances between the drill lines and the vault wall, throughout the vault depth, were also calculated.
The vault centerline intersected the articular surface of the glenoid at an intersubject average (and standard deviation) of 1.1 +/- 0.8 mm posterior to the glenoid face center point. In comparison with the neutralization direction, the centerline was oriented an average of 9.4 degrees +/- 5.1 degrees posteriorly and the face plane perpendicular direction was oriented an average of 7.3 degrees +/- 4.0 degrees posteriorly. Minimum distances between the centerline and the vault wall averaged 5.1 mm (minimum, 2.6 mm), whereas they averaged 4.4 mm (minimum, 1.0 to 1.4 mm) for the center peg drill lines of both surgical techniques.
The normal glenoid vault centerline is directed from lateral-posterior to medial-anterior, and it crosses, on the average, close to the glenoid face center. The neutralization direction, on the average, anteverts the glenoid relative to the vault centerline and the face plane perpendicular. Relationships between these directions vary across the subjects.
在许多个体中,肩胛盂关节面下的三维穹顶几何形状缩小到很窄的宽度,这增加了全肩关节置换术中肩胛盂部件钉或龙骨穿透的风险。本研究的目的是介绍一种通过计算机优化确定的肩胛盂穹顶中心线的概念,并将这种中心线几何形状与两种现有的肩胛盂部件定位手术方法进行比较。
从计算机断层扫描中创建了 34 个个体特定的三维肩胛几何模型。通过将穹顶切成一系列横截面来计算肩胛盂穹顶中心线,确定每个截面的中心,并使用优化拟合中心线。比较了中心线方向与两种手术技术确定的钻线方向,即与肩胛盂面垂直的面平面技术和与肩胛体平行的中和技术,这两种技术导致肩胛盂的版本为 0 度。还计算了在整个穹顶深度范围内钻线与穹顶壁之间的距离。
在个体间平均(和标准差)肩胛盂穹顶中心线在关节表面后 1.1 +/- 0.8 毫米处与关节面中心点相交。与中和方向相比,中心线平均向后定向 9.4 度 +/- 5.1 度,而面平面垂直方向平均向后定向 7.3 度 +/- 4.0 度。中心线与穹顶壁之间的最小距离平均为 5.1 毫米(最小距离为 2.6 毫米),而两种手术技术的中心钉钻线的最小距离平均为 4.4 毫米(最小距离为 1.0 至 1.4 毫米)。
正常的肩胛盂穹顶中心线从外侧后到内侧前定向,平均穿过接近肩胛盂面中心。中和方向平均使肩胛盂相对于穹顶中心线和与面平面垂直的方向向前倾斜。这些方向之间的关系在个体之间有所不同。