Anatomical plane and transverse axis of the scapula: Reliability of manual positioning of the anatomical landmarks.
Scapula
glenoid
glenoid orientation
pre-operative planning
scapular plane
shoulder arthroplasty
Journal
Shoulder & elbow
ISSN: 1758-5732
Titre abrégé: Shoulder Elbow
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101506589
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2022
Oct 2022
Historique:
received:
31
01
2021
revised:
31
01
2021
accepted:
16
02
2021
entrez:
6
10
2022
pubmed:
7
10
2022
medline:
7
10
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The aim of our study was to evaluate the accuracy of manual determination of the three key points defining the anatomical plane of the scapula, which conditions the reliability of planning software programs based on manual method. We included 82 scapula computed tomography scans (56 pathologic and 26 normal glenoid), excluding truncation and major three-dimensional artifact. Four observers independently picked the three key points for each case. Inter- and intra-observer agreement was calculated for each point, using the intraclass correlation method. The mean error (mm) between the observers was calculated as the diameter of the smallest sphere including the four chosen positions. Lower inter-observer agreement was found for the trigonum superoinferior position and for the glenoid center anteroposterior position. The mean positioning error between the four observers was 6.9 mm for the trigonum point, and error greater than 10 mm was recorded in 25% of the cases. The mean positioning error was 3.5 mm for the glenoid center in altered glenoid, compared to 1.8 mm for normal glenoid. Manual determination of an anatomical plane of the scapula suffers from inaccuracy especially due to the variability in trigonum picking, and in a lesser extent, to the variability of glenoid center picking in altered glenoid.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
The aim of our study was to evaluate the accuracy of manual determination of the three key points defining the anatomical plane of the scapula, which conditions the reliability of planning software programs based on manual method.
Method
UNASSIGNED
We included 82 scapula computed tomography scans (56 pathologic and 26 normal glenoid), excluding truncation and major three-dimensional artifact. Four observers independently picked the three key points for each case. Inter- and intra-observer agreement was calculated for each point, using the intraclass correlation method. The mean error (mm) between the observers was calculated as the diameter of the smallest sphere including the four chosen positions.
Results
UNASSIGNED
Lower inter-observer agreement was found for the trigonum superoinferior position and for the glenoid center anteroposterior position. The mean positioning error between the four observers was 6.9 mm for the trigonum point, and error greater than 10 mm was recorded in 25% of the cases. The mean positioning error was 3.5 mm for the glenoid center in altered glenoid, compared to 1.8 mm for normal glenoid.
Discussion
UNASSIGNED
Manual determination of an anatomical plane of the scapula suffers from inaccuracy especially due to the variability in trigonum picking, and in a lesser extent, to the variability of glenoid center picking in altered glenoid.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36199507
doi: 10.1177/17585732211001756
pii: 10.1177_17585732211001756
pmc: PMC9527481
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
491-499Informations de copyright
© 2021 The British Elbow & Shoulder Society.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Dr. Adrien JACQUOT is consultant for Tornier-Wright Medical and receives consulting fees. Dr. Marc-Olivier GAUCI is consultant for Tornier-Wright Medical and receives consulting fees. Manuel URVOY is an Employee of Imascap (Wright Medical). François BOUX DE CASSON is an Employee of Tornier – Wright Medical. Dr. Julien BERHOUET is consultant for Tornier-Wright Medical, and receives consulting fees. Dr. Hoel LETISSIER has no conflict of interest.
Références
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010 Mar;92(3):692-9
pubmed: 20194328
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2018 Jan 3;100(1):57-65
pubmed: 29298261
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2019 Mar 6;101(5):446-457
pubmed: 30845039
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005 Jan-Feb;14(1):85-90
pubmed: 15723018
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1999 Nov-Dec;8(6):595-8
pubmed: 10633895
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019 Dec;28(12):e398-e409
pubmed: 31353300
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015 Feb;24(2):302-9
pubmed: 25183662
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010 Apr;19(3):414-22
pubmed: 20137978
Int J Shoulder Surg. 2016 Apr-Jun;10(2):59-66
pubmed: 27186057
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013 Dec;21(12):2860-6
pubmed: 22932691
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011 Jan;20(1):3-11
pubmed: 20932782
JSES Open Access. 2018 Sep 21;2(4):200-204
pubmed: 30675595
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2003 Sep-Oct;12(5):493-6
pubmed: 14564275
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2018 Oct;104(6):767-772
pubmed: 29505820
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017 May;26(5):855-860
pubmed: 28131692
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007 May-Jun;16(3 Suppl):S90-5
pubmed: 17169588
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1992 Aug;74(7):1032-7
pubmed: 1522089
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009 Jul-Aug;18(4):515-20
pubmed: 19559369
Int Orthop. 2018 Dec;42(12):2897-2906
pubmed: 29968136
Psychol Bull. 1979 Mar;86(2):420-8
pubmed: 18839484
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010 Mar;19(2):166-71
pubmed: 19959378
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
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016 Oct;25(10):1601-6
pubmed: 27282738
Bone Joint J. 2013 Oct;95-B(10):1377-82
pubmed: 24078535
J Arthroplasty. 1999 Sep;14(6):756-60
pubmed: 10512449
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014 Nov;23(11):1724-30
pubmed: 24862249
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011 Jan;20(1):21-6
pubmed: 21134663
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2012 Oct;98(6 Suppl):S139-45
pubmed: 22964089
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009 Nov-Dec;18(6):907-14
pubmed: 19482490