Is Premorbid Glenoid Anatomy Altered in Patients with Glenohumeral Osteoarthritis?
Tóm tắt
Restoration of native, premorbid glenoid anatomy may be a goal in component placement during total shoulder arthroplasty. However, if patients with unilateral glenohumeral osteoarthritis are predisposed to the development of arthritis owing to abnormal native glenoid anatomy, this recommendation may be inappropriate. The purpose of this study was to determine if patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis have abnormal premorbid glenoid version or inclination, thereby predisposing them to subsequent glenoid disorders. We specifically tested whether: (1) premorbid glenoid version or inclination in the pathologic shoulder of patients with unilateral osteoarthritis, as determined by the glenoid vault model, is different from glenoid version or inclination in the contralateral nonpathologic shoulder of these patients; (2) there are differences between glenoid version or inclination in normal cadaver shoulders and the nonpathologic side of patients with unilateral osteoarthritis; and (3) there are differences between glenoid version or inclination in normal cadaver shoulders and the premorbid glenoid version and inclination in the pathologic shoulder of patients with unilateral osteoarthritis, as determined by the glenoid vault model. Bilateral CT scans were obtained in 27 patients with unilateral glenohumeral osteoarthritis. Thirty normal cadaver control shoulders also underwent CT scans. Premorbid glenoid version and inclination in the pathologic shoulder, as measured by the glenoid vault model, were compared with the contralateral nonpathologic shoulder and the normal cadaver control shoulders. Glenoid version and inclination of the normal shoulders were compared with the nonpathologic side from patients with unilateral osteoarthritis. Measurements were made by two different methods using three-dimensional surgical simulation software: (1) a direct measurement technique and (2) measurements derived from placement of a glenoid vault model. Mean differences in these parameters were compared between shoulder groups using paired and unpaired Student’s t-tests. Premorbid glenoid version and inclination in the pathologic shoulder as measured by the vault model averaged −7° (SD, 5) and 10° (SD, 6), respectively, compared with −7° (SD, 5) and 12° (SD, 6) as directly measured on the nonpathologic side, and −7° (SD, 4) and 12° (SD, 5) as directly measured in the normal cadaver control shoulders. There were no differences in glenoid version or inclination between the normal shoulders and the nonpathologic side of patients with unilateral osteoarthritis or between these shoulders and the premorbid version and inclination of the arthritic shoulder as measured by the vault model. Patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis do not appear to have abnormal premorbid glenoid retroversion or inclination. The glenoid vault model can be used to determine premorbid glenoid version and inclination. The glenoid vault model may be a clinically useful tool to estimate patient-specific premorbid glenoid anatomy, which may help in preoperative or intraoperative surgical planning for total shoulder arthroplasty. Level III, prognostic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Bokor DJ, O’Sullivan MD, Hazan GJ. Variability of measurement of glenoid version on computed tomography scan. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1999;8:595–598.
Bryant D, Litchfield R, Sandow M, Gartsman GM, Guyatt G, Kirkley A. A comparison of pain, strength, range of motion, and functional outcomes after hemiarthroplasty and total shoulder arthroplasty in patients with osteoarthritis of the shoulder: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:1947–1956.
Bryce CD, Davison AC, Lewis GS, Wang L, Flemming DJ, Armstrong AD. Two-dimensional glenoid version measurements vary with coronal and sagittal scapular rotation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92:692–699.
Churchill RS, Brems JJ, Kotschi H. Glenoid size, inclination, and version: an anatomic study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2001;10:327–332.
Codsi MJ, Bennetts C, Gordiev K, Boeck DM, Kwon Y, Brems J, Powell K, Iannotti JP. Normal glenoid vault anatomy and validation of a novel glenoid implant shape. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008;17:471–478.
Deshmukh AV, Koris M, Zurakowski D, Thornhill TS. Total shoulder arthroplasty: long-term survivorship, functional outcome, and quality of life. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005;14:471–479.
Edwards TB, Boulahia A, Kempf JF, Boileau P, Nemoz C, Walch G. Shoulder arthroplasty in patients with osteoarthritis and dysplastic glenoid morphology. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2004;13:1–4.
Farron A, Terrier A, Buchler P. Risks of loosening of a prosthetic glenoid implanted in retroversion. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006;15:521–526.
Ganapathi A, McCarron JA, Chen X, Iannotti JP. Predicting normal glenoid version from the pathologic scapula: a comparison of 4 methods in 2- and 3-dimensional models. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20:234–244.
Hasan SS, Leith JM, Campbell B, Kapil R, Smith KL, Matsen FA 3rd. Characteristics of unsatisfactory shoulder arthroplasties. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002;11:431–441.
Hawkins RJ, Bell RH, Jallay B. Total shoulder arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989;242:188–194.
Hendel MD, Bryan JA, Barsoum WK, Rodriguez EJ, Brems JJ, Evans PJ, Iannotti JP. Comparison of patient-specific instruments with standard surgical instruments in determining glenoid component position: a randomized prospective clinical trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94:2167–2175.
Iannotti JP, Norris TR. Influence of preoperative factors on outcome of shoulder arthroplasty for glenohumeral osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85:251–258.
Iannotti JP, Spencer EE, Jr Winter U, Deffenbaugh D, Williams G. Prosthetic positioning in total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005;14(suppl):S111–S121.
Jun BJ, Iannotti JP, McGarry MH, Yoo JC, Quigley RJ, Lee TQ. The effects of prosthetic humeral head shape on glenohumeral joint kinematics: a comparison of non-spherical and spherical prosthetic heads to the native humeral head. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013 Mar 16. pii: S1058-2746(13)00025-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2013.01.002. [Epub ahead of print].
Kwon YW, Powell KA, Yum JK, Brems JJ, Iannotti JP. Use of three-dimensional computed tomography for the analysis of the glenoid anatomy. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005;14:85–90.
Norris TR, Iannotti JP. Functional outcome after shoulder arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis: a multicenter study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002;11:130–135.
Nyffeler RW, Jost B, Pfirrmann CW, Gerber C. Measurement of glenoid version: conventional radiographs versus computed tomography scans. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2003;12:493–496.
Nyffeler RW, Sheikh R, Atkinson TS, Jacob HA, Favre P, Gerber C. Effects of glenoid component version on humeral head displacement and joint reaction forces: an experimental study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006;15:625–629.
Orfaly RM, Rockwood CA Jr, Esenyel CZ, Wirth MA. A prospective functional outcome study of shoulder arthroplasty for osteoarthritis with an intact rotator cuff. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2003;12:214–221.
Scalise JJ, Bryan J, Polster J, Brems JJ, Iannotti JP. Quantitative analysis of glenoid bone loss in osteoarthritis using three-dimensional computed tomography scans. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008;17:328–335.
Scalise JJ, Codsi MJ, Bryan J, Iannotti JP. The three-dimensional glenoid vault model can estimate normal glenoid version in osteoarthritis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008;17:487–491.
Sperling JW, Cofield RH, Rowland CM. Neer hemiarthroplasty and Neer total shoulder arthroplasty in patients fifty years old or less. Long-term results. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998;80:464–473.
von Schroeder HP, Kuiper SD, Botte MJ. Osseous anatomy of the scapula. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;383:131–139.
Welsch G, Mamisch TC, Kikinis R, Schmidt R, Lang P, Forst R, Fitz W. CT-based preoperative analysis of scapula morphology and glenohumeral joint geometry. Comput Aided Surg. 2003;8:264–268.