Difference in glenoid retroversion between two-dimensional axial computed tomography and three-dimensional reconstructed images.
Bone retroversion
Multidetector computed tomography
Scapula
Shoulder
Three dimensional
Journal
Clinics in shoulder and elbow
ISSN: 2383-8337
Titre abrégé: Clin Shoulder Elb
Pays: Korea (South)
ID NLM: 101658558
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2020
Jun 2020
Historique:
received:
17
03
2020
revised:
06
05
2020
accepted:
07
05
2020
entrez:
17
12
2020
pubmed:
18
12
2020
medline:
18
12
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The glenoid version of the shoulder joint correlates with the stability of the glenohumeral joint and the clinical results of total shoulder arthroplasty. We sought to analyze and compare the glenoid version measured by traditional axial two-dimensional (2D) computed tomography (CT) and three-dimensional (3D) reconstructed images at different levels. A total of 30 cases, including 15 male and 15 female patients, who underwent 3D shoulder CT imaging was randomly selected and matched by sex consecutively at one hospital. The angular difference between the scapular body axis and 2D CT slice axis was measured. The glenoid version was assessed at three levels (midpoint, upper one-third, and center of the lower circle of the glenoid) using Friedman's method in the axial plane with 2D CT images and at the same level of three different transverse planes using a 3D reconstructed image. The mean difference between the scapular body axis on the 3D reconstructed image and the 2D CT slice axis was 38.4°. At the level of the midpoint of the glenoid, the measurements were 1.7°±4.9° on the 2D CT images and -1.8°±4.1° in the 3D reconstructed image. At the level of the center of the lower circle, the measurements were 2.7°±5.2° on the 2D CT images and -0.5°±4.8° in the 3D reconstructed image. A statistically significant difference was found between the 2D CT and 3D reconstructed images at all three levels. The glenoid version is measured differently between axial 2D CT and 3D reconstructed images at three levels. Use of 3D reconstructed imaging can provide a more accurate glenoid version profile relative to 2D CT. The glenoid version is measured differently at different levels.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The glenoid version of the shoulder joint correlates with the stability of the glenohumeral joint and the clinical results of total shoulder arthroplasty. We sought to analyze and compare the glenoid version measured by traditional axial two-dimensional (2D) computed tomography (CT) and three-dimensional (3D) reconstructed images at different levels.
METHODS
METHODS
A total of 30 cases, including 15 male and 15 female patients, who underwent 3D shoulder CT imaging was randomly selected and matched by sex consecutively at one hospital. The angular difference between the scapular body axis and 2D CT slice axis was measured. The glenoid version was assessed at three levels (midpoint, upper one-third, and center of the lower circle of the glenoid) using Friedman's method in the axial plane with 2D CT images and at the same level of three different transverse planes using a 3D reconstructed image.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The mean difference between the scapular body axis on the 3D reconstructed image and the 2D CT slice axis was 38.4°. At the level of the midpoint of the glenoid, the measurements were 1.7°±4.9° on the 2D CT images and -1.8°±4.1° in the 3D reconstructed image. At the level of the center of the lower circle, the measurements were 2.7°±5.2° on the 2D CT images and -0.5°±4.8° in the 3D reconstructed image. A statistically significant difference was found between the 2D CT and 3D reconstructed images at all three levels.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The glenoid version is measured differently between axial 2D CT and 3D reconstructed images at three levels. Use of 3D reconstructed imaging can provide a more accurate glenoid version profile relative to 2D CT. The glenoid version is measured differently at different levels.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33330237
doi: 10.5397/cise.2020.00122
pii: cise-2020-00122
pmc: PMC7714332
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
71-79Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 Korean Shoulder and Elbow Society.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict of interest None.
Références
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010 Dec;19(8):1230-7
pubmed: 20452247
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005 Sep;87(9):1928-36
pubmed: 16140806
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1999 Nov-Dec;8(6):595-8
pubmed: 10633895
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006 Sep-Oct;15(5):625-9
pubmed: 16979061
Skeletal Radiol. 2000 Apr;29(4):204-10
pubmed: 10855468
Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2011 Dec;4(4):191-9
pubmed: 21826432
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017 Apr;26(4):669-673
pubmed: 27765501
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011 Jan;20(1):3-11
pubmed: 20932782
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2001 Jul-Aug;10(4):327-32
pubmed: 11517362
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2003 Sep-Oct;12(5):493-6
pubmed: 14564275
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010 Mar;92(3):692-9
pubmed: 20194328
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2001 Sep-Oct;10(5):399-409
pubmed: 11641695
J Anat. 2001 Sep;199(Pt 3):323-8
pubmed: 11554509
Skeletal Radiol. 2015 Nov;44(11):1627-35
pubmed: 26201674
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005 Jan-Feb;14(1):85-90
pubmed: 15723018
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2003 Jul-Aug;12(4):360-4
pubmed: 12934031
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994 Nov;(308):98-101
pubmed: 7955709
Am J Sports Med. 2002 Jan-Feb;30(1):20-6
pubmed: 11798991
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007 May-Jun;16(3 Suppl):S90-5
pubmed: 17169588
J Orthop Res. 2004 Jan;22(1):202-7
pubmed: 14656681
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1992 Aug;74(7):1032-7
pubmed: 1522089
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011 Jun;20(4):577-83
pubmed: 21324716
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006 Jul-Aug;15(4):521-6
pubmed: 16831661
Clin Anat. 2001 Sep;14(5):320-3
pubmed: 11754219
Neuroimage. 2006 Jul 1;31(3):1116-28
pubmed: 16545965