CT-based and morphological comparison of glenoid inclination and version angles and mineralisation distribution in human body donors.
3D-CT
Bone mineralization
CT-OAM
Glenoid anteversion
Glenoid retroversion
Inclination angle
Shoulder joint
Journal
BMC musculoskeletal disorders
ISSN: 1471-2474
Titre abrégé: BMC Musculoskelet Disord
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968565
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 Oct 2021
05 Oct 2021
Historique:
received:
13
02
2021
accepted:
25
08
2021
entrez:
6
10
2021
pubmed:
7
10
2021
medline:
8
10
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
For optimal prosthetic anchoring in omarthritis surgery, a differentiated knowledge on the mineralisation distribution of the glenoid is important. However, database on the mineralisation of diseased joints and potential relations with glenoid angles is limited. Shoulder specimens from ten female and nine male body donors with an average age of 81.5 years were investigated. Using 3D-CT-multiplanar reconstruction, glenoid inclination and retroversion angles were measured, and osteoarthritis signs graded. Computed Tomography-Osteoabsorptiometry (CT-OAM) is an established method to determine the subchondral bone plate mineralisation, which has been demonstrated to serve as marker for the long-term loading history of joints. Based on mineralisation distribution mappings of healthy shoulder specimens, physiological and different CT-OAM patterns were compared with glenoid angles. Osteoarthritis grades were 0-I in 52.6% of the 3D-CT-scans, grades II-III in 34.3%, and grade IV in 13.2%, with in females twice as frequently (45%) higher grades (III, IV) than in males (22%, III). The average inclination angle was 8.4°. In glenoids with inclination ≤10°, mineralisation was predominantly centrally distributed and tended to shift more cranially when the inclination raised to > 10°. The average retroversion angle was - 5.2°. A dorsally enhanced mineralisation distribution was found in glenoids with versions from - 15.9° to + 1.7°. A predominantly centrally distributed mineralisation was accompanied by a narrower range of retroversion angles between - 10° to - 0.4°. This study is one of the first to combine CT-based analyses of glenoid angles and mineralisation distribution in an elderly population. The data set is limited to 19 individuals, however, indicates that superior inclination between 0° and 10°-15°, and dorsal version ranging between - 9° to - 3° may be predominantly associated with anterior and central mineralisation patterns previously classified as physiological for the shoulder joint. The current basic research findings may serve as basic data set for future studies addressing the glenoid geometry for treatment planning in omarthritis.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
For optimal prosthetic anchoring in omarthritis surgery, a differentiated knowledge on the mineralisation distribution of the glenoid is important. However, database on the mineralisation of diseased joints and potential relations with glenoid angles is limited.
METHODS
METHODS
Shoulder specimens from ten female and nine male body donors with an average age of 81.5 years were investigated. Using 3D-CT-multiplanar reconstruction, glenoid inclination and retroversion angles were measured, and osteoarthritis signs graded. Computed Tomography-Osteoabsorptiometry (CT-OAM) is an established method to determine the subchondral bone plate mineralisation, which has been demonstrated to serve as marker for the long-term loading history of joints. Based on mineralisation distribution mappings of healthy shoulder specimens, physiological and different CT-OAM patterns were compared with glenoid angles.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Osteoarthritis grades were 0-I in 52.6% of the 3D-CT-scans, grades II-III in 34.3%, and grade IV in 13.2%, with in females twice as frequently (45%) higher grades (III, IV) than in males (22%, III). The average inclination angle was 8.4°. In glenoids with inclination ≤10°, mineralisation was predominantly centrally distributed and tended to shift more cranially when the inclination raised to > 10°. The average retroversion angle was - 5.2°. A dorsally enhanced mineralisation distribution was found in glenoids with versions from - 15.9° to + 1.7°. A predominantly centrally distributed mineralisation was accompanied by a narrower range of retroversion angles between - 10° to - 0.4°.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This study is one of the first to combine CT-based analyses of glenoid angles and mineralisation distribution in an elderly population. The data set is limited to 19 individuals, however, indicates that superior inclination between 0° and 10°-15°, and dorsal version ranging between - 9° to - 3° may be predominantly associated with anterior and central mineralisation patterns previously classified as physiological for the shoulder joint. The current basic research findings may serve as basic data set for future studies addressing the glenoid geometry for treatment planning in omarthritis.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34610804
doi: 10.1186/s12891-021-04660-4
pii: 10.1186/s12891-021-04660-4
pmc: PMC8493698
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
849Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010 Mar;92(3):692-9
pubmed: 20194328
J Orthop Res. 2019 Jan;37(1):205-210
pubmed: 29774949
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015 Mar;24(3):416-24
pubmed: 25240512
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017 Aug;26(8):1462-1468
pubmed: 28372970
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012 Nov;21(11):1526-33
pubmed: 22445158
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010 Mar;19(2):166-71
pubmed: 19959378
PLoS One. 2013 Oct 08;8(10):e75791
pubmed: 24116075
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2017 Jan 10;18(1):9
pubmed: 28068966
Acta Radiol Diagn (Stockh). 1977 Jul;18(4):481-91
pubmed: 920239
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2001 Jul-Aug;10(4):327-32
pubmed: 11517362
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019 Dec;28(12):2457-2466
pubmed: 31353303
Skeletal Radiol. 1989;18(7):507-12
pubmed: 2588028
Skeletal Radiol. 2014 Aug;43(8):1053-6
pubmed: 24744014
Sci Rep. 2021 Apr 21;11(1):8652
pubmed: 33883625
Surg Radiol Anat. 2013 May;35(4):295-300
pubmed: 23124608
Int Orthop. 2011 Dec;35(12):1813-9
pubmed: 21735207
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015 Dec;24(12):1948-53
pubmed: 26350880
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015 Apr 15;97(8):651-8
pubmed: 25878309
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015 Feb 4;97(3):251-9
pubmed: 25653326
Rheumatol Int. 2021 Jul;41(7):1221-1231
pubmed: 33907879
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2003 Jul-Aug;12(4):360-4
pubmed: 12934031
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016 Jul;25(7):1056-63
pubmed: 26948005
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016 Mar;25(3):502-9
pubmed: 26597658
Medicine (Baltimore). 2015 Sep;94(38):e1615
pubmed: 26402829
Arthroscopy. 2000 Jul-Aug;16(5):471-6
pubmed: 10882441
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1992 Aug;74(7):1032-7
pubmed: 1522089
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013 Aug;22(8):1063-7
pubmed: 23375877
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008 Sep-Oct;17(5):695-702
pubmed: 18558500
Eur J Radiol. 2000 Aug;35(2):88-102
pubmed: 10963915
Ann Rheum Dis. 1957 Dec;16(4):494-502
pubmed: 13498604
EFORT Open Rev. 2020 Mar 2;5(3):126-137
pubmed: 32296546
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2020 Oct 9;21(1):668
pubmed: 33036604
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019 Jul;28(7):1281-1290
pubmed: 30935825
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011 Apr;20(3):467-76
pubmed: 20926311
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013 Jul 17;95(14):1297-304
pubmed: 23864178
Orthopade. 2017 Dec;46(12):1015-1021
pubmed: 29098355
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2021 Jan 8;22(1):49
pubmed: 33419412
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2020 Feb;72:115-121
pubmed: 31862605
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016 Jul;25(7):1064-8
pubmed: 26895600
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002 Mar-Apr;11(2):174-81
pubmed: 11988730
Surg Radiol Anat. 2019 Apr;41(4):401-408
pubmed: 30707278
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012 Mar;21(3):329-35
pubmed: 21782473
Surg Radiol Anat. 2014 May;36(4):327-31
pubmed: 24173012
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1983 Apr;65(4):456-60
pubmed: 6833319
J Orthop Surg Res. 2014 May 13;9:34
pubmed: 24886613
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2010 Apr;18(4):419-33
pubmed: 20119671
Med Sci Law. 2018 Jan;58(1):70-82
pubmed: 29310502
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2021 May;30(5):1068-1077
pubmed: 32791097
Bone Joint J. 2013 Jul;95-B(7):935-41
pubmed: 23814246
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2018 Oct;476(10):2101-2104
pubmed: 29533246
Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol. 2019 May;32(3):207-214
pubmed: 30965371