Suppr超能文献

肩胛盂骨丢失的数学模型表明,计算结果存在差异,这可能会影响手术决策。

Mathematical modeling of glenoid bone loss demonstrate differences in calculations that May affect surgical decision making.

作者信息

Parada Stephen A, Jones Matthew C, DeFoor Mikalyn T, Griswold B Gage, Roberts Aaron D, Provencher Matthew T

机构信息

Department of Orthopaedics, Medical College of Georgia at Augusta University Medical Center, Augusta, GA, USA.

School of Medicine, Medical College of Georgia at Augusta University, Augusta, GA, USA.

出版信息

J Orthop. 2020 Sep 22;22:402-407. doi: 10.1016/j.jor.2020.09.016. eCollection 2020 Nov-Dec.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Two glenoid bone loss calculations are compared across a range of anatomic glenoid sizes.

METHODS

20 cadaveric paired glenoid diameters were measured to create glenoid models with bone loss calculated in 1 mm linear increments up to 50% bone loss comparing the linear measurement percentage (LMP) to the circle line method (CLM) gold standard.

RESULTS

The LMP overestimates glenoid bone loss at every potential 1 mm increment across each glenoid model until bone loss reaches 50%.

CONCLUSION

The widely-used LMP method overestimates bone loss compared to a gold standard potentially misguiding surgeons towards bony reconstruction in shoulder instability during preoperative planning.

摘要

目的

在一系列解剖学上不同大小的肩胛盂上比较两种肩胛盂骨丢失量的计算方法。

方法

测量20对尸体肩胛盂的直径,以创建肩胛盂模型,计算骨丢失量,骨丢失量以1毫米的线性增量递增,直至达到50%的骨丢失,将线性测量百分比(LMP)与作为金标准的环线法(CLM)进行比较。

结果

在每个肩胛盂模型中,直至骨丢失达到50%之前,LMP在每1毫米的潜在增量处均高估了肩胛盂骨丢失量。

结论

与金标准相比,广泛使用的LMP方法高估了骨丢失量,这可能会在术前规划期间误导外科医生在肩关节不稳时进行骨重建。

相似文献

本文引用的文献

2
Assessment and Evaluation of Glenoid Bone Loss.肩胛盂骨缺损的评估与评价
Arthrosc Tech. 2016 Aug 22;5(4):e947-e951. doi: 10.1016/j.eats.2016.04.027. eCollection 2016 Aug.

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验