Wilder Lauren, Simon Peter, Reyes Justin, Diaz Miguel, Munassi Steven, Frankle Mark A
Foundation for Orthopaedic Research and Education, Tampa, Florida.
Department of Medical Engineering, College of Engineering and Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida.
JB JS Open Access. 2023 Jan 31;8(1). doi: 10.2106/JBJS.OA.22.00105. eCollection 2023 Jan-Mar.
Variations among methods to measure glenoid version have created uncertainty regarding which method provides the most consistent measurements of morphology. Greater deformity may also make accurate depiction of the native morphology more challenging. This study examined 4 current methods (Friedman, corrected Friedman, Ganapathi-Iannotti, and Matsumura) and an experimental scapular border-derived coordinate system method, to compare measurement inconsistencies between methods and reference systems and assess the impact of glenoid deformity on measured glenoid version.
Three-dimensional scapulae were created from computed tomography (CT) scans of 74 shoulders that had undergone arthroplasty (28 A2, 22 B2, 10 B3, and 14 C glenoids) and 34 shoulders that had not undergone arthroplasty. Glenoid version measurements were made in Mimics using the 4 methods. For the experimental method, scapulae were reconstructed, and 3 orthogonal global coordinate planes (GCPs) were derived from the medial and lateral borders. Version was measured as the angle between the sagittal reference plane and an anterior-posterior glenoid vector. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated for the Friedman and corrected Friedman methods. Inconsistencies were assessed for all methods using the interquartile range, mean and standard deviation, and repeated-measures analysis of variance. Concordance correlation coefficients (CCCs) were calculated to assess agreement among the methods.
Scapular plane-based methods (experimental, Friedman, and corrected Friedman) yielded an average version between -10° and -12°, with average measurement differences among these methods of <2°. Vault methods (Ganapathi-Iannotti and Matsumura) overestimated or underestimated version by an average of 5° to 7° compared with scapular plane-based methods, and showed significant differences of >12° when compared with each other. Scapular plane-based methods maintained consistency with increasing deformity.
The other methods of version measurement using the scapular planes as the reference were highly comparable with the corrected Friedman method. However, when the reference plane was the glenoid vault, version measurements were inconsistent with scapular plane-based methods, which is attributed to differences in the reference systems. In surgical planning, the coordinate system utilized will impact version measurements, which can result in variations in the planned surgical solutions. Additionally, as glenoid deformity increases, this variation resulting from the utilization of different coordinate systems is magnified.
测量肩胛盂版本的方法之间存在差异,这使得关于哪种方法能提供最一致的形态测量结果存在不确定性。更大的畸形也可能使准确描绘原始形态更具挑战性。本研究考察了4种当前方法(弗里德曼法、修正弗里德曼法、加纳帕蒂 - 扬诺蒂法和松村法)以及一种基于肩胛缘的实验性坐标系方法,以比较各方法与参考系统之间的测量不一致性,并评估肩胛盂畸形对测量的肩胛盂版本的影响。
从74例接受关节成形术的肩部(28例A2型、22例B2型、10例B3型和14例C型肩胛盂)以及34例未接受关节成形术的肩部的计算机断层扫描(CT)图像中创建三维肩胛骨模型。在Mimics软件中使用这4种方法测量肩胛盂版本。对于实验方法,重建肩胛骨,并从内侧和外侧缘导出3个正交的全局坐标平面(GCPs)。版本测量为矢状参考平面与肩胛盂前后向量之间的夹角。计算弗里德曼法和修正弗里德曼法的组内相关系数(ICC)。使用四分位距、均值和标准差以及重复测量方差分析评估所有方法的不一致性。计算一致性相关系数(CCC)以评估各方法之间的一致性。
基于肩胛平面的方法(实验法、弗里德曼法和修正弗里德曼法)得出的平均版本在-10°至-12°之间,这些方法之间的平均测量差异<2°。与基于肩胛平面的方法相比,基于肩胛盂穹顶的方法(加纳帕蒂 - 扬诺蒂法和松村法)高估或低估版本平均5°至7°,且相互比较时显示出>12°的显著差异。基于肩胛平面的方法随着畸形增加保持一致性。
使用肩胛平面作为参考的其他版本测量方法与修正弗里德曼法具有高度可比性。然而,当参考平面为肩胛盂穹顶时,版本测量与基于肩胛平面的方法不一致,这归因于参考系统的差异。在手术规划中,所使用的坐标系将影响版本测量,这可能导致计划手术方案的差异。此外,随着肩胛盂畸形增加,因使用不同坐标系而产生的这种差异会被放大。