Objective To explore the morphological classification and clinical significance of glenoid based on CT 3D reconstruction. Methods Data of 290 cases of scapular bones data were collected from People's Hospital of Lu Xian County. The morphological characteristics of the glenoid pelvis were observed, and the upper and lower diameters, anterior and posterior diameters of the glenoid pelvis, the depth of the glenoid fossa, the degree of tilt angle and torsion angle of the glenoid pelvis were measured. Results The result of CT three- dimensional reconstruction showed that, the glenoid was classified into four types: namely, quotation marks-type (165 cases, accounting for 56.90%); oval-type(65 cases, accounting for 22.41%); water drops-type ( 51 cases, accounting for 17.59 %); gourd-type(9 cases, accounting for 3.10 %). There were statistical differences in the upper and lower diameters of the glenoid pelvis, the depth of the glenoid fossa, the degree of tilt angle and torsion angle of the glenoid pelvis between the oval-type and the quotation marks-type, water drops-type and gourd-type(P<0.05). The degree of tilt angle in water drops-type was greater than that of quotation marks-type. The upper and lower diameters of the glenoid pelvis in gourd-type were less than that of quotation marks-type and water drops-type. The anterior and posterior diameters of the glenoid pelvis in oval-type and water drops-type were greater than that of quotation marks-type and gourd-type. The anterior and posterior diameters of the glenoid pelvis in quotation marks-type was greater than that of gourd-type. The depth of the glenoid fossa in quotation marks-type was less than that of water drops-type and gourd-type. There were statistical differences in genders among the upper and lower diameters, anterior and posterior diameters of the glenoid pelvis, the depth of the glenoid fossa, the degree of tilt angle and torsion angle of the glenoid pelvis (all P<0.05). Conclusions Based on the results of three-dimensional CT reconstruction, the glenoid can be divided into four types, with the quotation marks-type as the main type and gourd-type as the rare type, and the morphology and classification of which are of certain clinical guiding significance.
Key words
Glenoid /
Anatomy /
Type classification /
Three-dimensional reconstruction
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}
References
[1] Wolff AL, Rosenzweig L. Anatomical and biomechanical framework for shoulder arthroplasty rehabilitation[J]. J Hand Ther, 2017, 30(2): 167-174. DOI: 10.1016/j.jht.2017.05.009.
[2] Chertovskikh AA, Tuchik ES. The age-specific changes in the glenoid cavity of scapula[J]. Sud Med Ekspert, 2019, 62(2): 31-33. DOI: 10.17116/sudmed20196202131.
[3] Alert JW, Sellers TR, Simon P, et al. Massive rotator cuff tears in patients older than sixty-five: indications for cuff repair versus reverse total shoulder arthroplasty[J]. Am J Orthop(Belle Mead NJ), 2018, 47 (12): 1-14. DOI: 10.12788/ajo.2018.0109.
[4] Friedman RJ, Cheung EV, Flurin PH, et al. Are age and patient gender associated with different rates and magnitudes of clinical improvement after reverse shoulder arthroplasty[J]? Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2018, 476(6): 1264-1273. DOI: 10.1007/s11999.0000000000000270.
[5] Sershon RA, Van Thiel GS, Lin EC, et al. Clinical outcomes of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in patients aged younger than 60 years[J]. J Shoulder Elbow Surg, 2014, 23(3): 395- 400. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2013.07.047.
[6] Samuelsen BT, Wagner ER, Houdek MT, et al. Primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty in patients aged 65 years or younger[J]. J Shoulder Elbow Surg, 2017, 26(1): e13-e17. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2016.05.026.
[7] Leathers MP, Ialenti MN, Feeley BT, et al. Do younger patients have better results after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty[J]? J Shoulder Elbow Surg, 2018, 27(6S): S24-S28. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2017.11.014.
[8] Werthel JD, Sirveaux F, Block D. Reverses houlder arthroplasty in recent proximal humerus fractures[J]. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res, 2018, 104(6): 779-785. DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2018.07.003.
[9] Ji JH, Jeong JY, Song HS, et al. Early clinical results of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in the Korean population[J]. J Shoulder Elbow Surg, 2013, 22(8): 1102-1107. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2012.07.019.
[10] Jha SC, Fukuta S, Wada K, et al. Optimizing baseplate position in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in small- sized Japanese females: technical notes and literature review[J]. J Med Invest, 2016, 63(1-2): 8-14. DOI: 10.2152/jmi.63.8.
[11] Chae SW, Kim SY, Lee H, et al. Effect of baseplate size on primary glenoid stability and impingement-free range of motion in reverse shoulder arthroplasty[J]. BMC Musculoskelet Disord, 2014, 15: 417. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2474-15-417.
[12] Athwal GS, Faber KJ. Outcomes of reverse shoulder arthroplasty using a mini 25-mm glenoid baseplate[J]. Int Orthop, 2016, 40(1): 109-113. DOI: 10.1007/s00264-015-2945-x.
[13] Yang YH, Zuo JL, Liu T, et al. Glenoid morphology and the safe zone for protecting the suprascapular nerve during baseplate fixation in reverse shoulder arthroplasty[J]. Int Orthop, 2018, 42(3): 587-593. DOI: 10.1007/s00264-017-3646-4.
[14] 赵虹瑾, 郭晓光, 覃波, 等. 基于CT三维重建的肩胛上角形态学分型及临床意义[J]. 中国临床解剖学杂志, 2019, 37(5): 508-511. DOI: 10.13418/j.issn.1001-165x.2019.05.006.
[15] 张磊, 覃波, 郭晓光, 等. 肩胛下角的解剖形态学分型及临床意义[J]. 中国临床解剖学杂志, 2018, 36(2): 132-136. DOI: 10.13418/j.issn. 1001- 165x.2018.02.003.
[16] 史会明, 王飞, 胡远军, 等. 基于3D模型并肩胛骨接骨板设计的肩胛骨测量[J]. 中国临床解剖学杂志, 2018, 36(4): 387-391. DOI: 10.13418/j.issn.1001-165x.2018.04.007.
[17] El-Din WAN, Ali MHM. A morphometric study of the patterns and variations of the acromion and glenoid cavity of the Scapulae in egyptian population[J]. J Clin Diagn Res, 2015, 9(8): AC08-AC11. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2015/14362.6386.
[18] Distefano JG, Park AY, Nguyen TQ, et al. Optimal screw placement for base plate fixation in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty[J]. J Shoulder Elbow Surg, 2011, 20(3): 467-476. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2010.06.001.
[19]Moineau G, Levigne C, Boileau P, et al. Three- dimensional measurement method of arthritic glenoid cavity morphology: feasibility and reproducibility[J]. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res, 2012, 98(6 Suppl): S139-S145. DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2012.06.007.
[20]Boileau P, Gauci MO, Wagner ER, et al. The reverse shoulder arthroplasty angle: a new measurement of glenoid inclination for reverse shoulder arthroplasty[J]. J Shoulder Elbow Surg, 2019, 28(7): 1281-1290. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2018.11.074.
[21] Sheth U, Saltzman M. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: implant design considerations[J]. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med, 2019, 12(4): 554-561. DOI: 10.1007/s12178-019-09585-z.
[22]Shukla DR, McLaughlin RJ, Lee J, et al. Intraobserver and interobserver reliability of the modified Walch classification using radiographs and computed tomography[J]. J Shoulder Elbow Surg, 2019, 28(4): 625-630. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2018.09.021
[23]Vo KV, Hackett DJ, Gee AO, et al. Classifications in brief: Walch classification of primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis[J]. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2017, 475(9): 2335-2340. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-017-5317-6.
[24] Kopka M, Fourman M, Soni A, et al. Can glenoid wear be accurately assessed using x-ray imaging? Evaluating agreement of x-ray and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) Walch classification[J]. J Shoulder Elbow Surg, 2017, 26(9): 1527-1532. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2017.03.014.
[25] Neyton L, Gauci MO, Deransart P, et al. Three-dimensional characterization of the anteverted glenoid (type D) in primary glenohu- meral osteoarthritis[J]. J Shoulder Elbow Surg, 2019, 28 (6): 1175-1182. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2018.09.015.
[26]Verhaegen F, Plessers K, Verborgt O, et al. Can the contralateral scapula be used as a reliable template to reconstruct the eroded scapula during shoulder arthroplasty[J]? J Shoulder Elbow Surg, 2018, 27(6): 1133-1138. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2017.12.024.
PDF(1260 KB)
