Matsumura Noboru, Ogawa Kiyohisa, Ikegami Hiroyasu, Collin Philippe, Walch Gilles, Toyama Yoshiaki
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, School of Medicine, Keio University, 35 Shinanomachi, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 160-8582, Japan.
J Orthop Surg Res. 2014 Mar 11;9(1):17. doi: 10.1186/1749-799X-9-17.
The conventional measuring method for glenoid version is greatly influenced by the scapular body shape that varies widely between patients. We postulated that the glenoid vault version could be more useful than the conventional glenoid version in clinical cases.
The purposes of this study were to compare the values of glenoid version measured with the conventional method to those with the vault method and to investigate the feasibility of the glenoid vault version.
Computed tomography scans of 150 normal shoulders and 150 arthritic shoulders were analyzed. Three-dimensionally corrected slices were reconstructed from the Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) data, and glenoid version was measured with both the conventional and vault methods. After determining intra- and interrater reliabilities, differences in glenoid version values between the conventional and vault methods were assessed. In the normal shoulder group, side-to-side differences of glenoid version values were also evaluated in both methods.
Both measuring methods demonstrated high intra- and interrater reliabilities. The normal glenoid had 1.1° ± 3.2° retroversion with the conventional method and 8.9° ± 2.7° retroversion with the vault method. The average glenoid retroversion of arthritic shoulders was 10.8° ± 9.3° measured with the conventional method and 18.2° ± 9.1° with the vault method. The vault method showed significantly larger glenoid retroversion than the conventional method in both normal and arthritic shoulder groups. Both conventional glenoid retroversion and glenoid vault retroversion were significantly larger on dominant sides than on nondominant sides in the normal shoulders.
The glenoid vault version could be used as an alternative measuring method for glenoid version with high reliability. In clinical use, the glenoid vault version appears to be more useful than the conventional glenoid version to assess the severity of arthritis and difficulty of glenoid replacement. The glenoid vault is not symmetric, but usually retroverted in both normal and arthritic shoulders.
传统的关节盂后倾测量方法受患者之间肩胛骨形态差异的影响很大。我们推测,在临床病例中,关节盂穹窿后倾可能比传统的关节盂后倾更有用。
本研究的目的是比较传统方法与穹窿方法测量的关节盂后倾值,并探讨关节盂穹窿后倾的可行性。
分析了150例正常肩关节和150例关节炎肩关节的计算机断层扫描图像。从医学数字成像和通信(DICOM)数据中重建三维校正切片,并用传统方法和穹窿方法测量关节盂后倾。在确定测量者内和测量者间的可靠性后,评估传统方法和穹窿方法之间关节盂后倾值的差异。在正常肩关节组中,还评估了两种方法下关节盂后倾值的左右差异。
两种测量方法均显示出较高的测量者内和测量者间可靠性。传统方法测量正常关节盂的后倾角度为1.1°±3.2°,穹窿方法为8.9°±2.7°。用传统方法测量的关节炎肩关节的平均关节盂后倾角度为10.8°±9.3°,用穹窿方法为18.2°±9.1°。在正常和关节炎肩关节组中,穹窿方法显示的关节盂后倾明显大于传统方法。在正常肩关节中,传统关节盂后倾和关节盂穹窿后倾在优势侧均明显大于非优势侧。
关节盂穹窿后倾可作为一种可靠性高的关节盂后倾替代测量方法。在临床应用中,关节盂穹窿后倾似乎比传统的关节盂后倾更有助于评估关节炎的严重程度和关节盂置换的难度。关节盂穹窿不对称,但在正常和关节炎肩关节中通常呈后倾状态。