The Real Post-Operative Range of Motion Differs from the Virtual Pre-Operative Planned Range of Motion in Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty.

motion analysis preoperative planning range of motion reverse shoulder arthroplasty scapulothoracic joint soft tissues

Journal

Journal of personalized medicine
ISSN: 2075-4426
Titre abrégé: J Pers Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101602269

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
29 Apr 2023
Historique:
received: 28 03 2023
revised: 21 04 2023
accepted: 26 04 2023
medline: 27 5 2023
pubmed: 27 5 2023
entrez: 27 5 2023
Statut: epublish

Résumé

The purpose of this study was to analyze the real range of motion (RoM) measured in patients operated on for reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) and compare it to the virtual RoM provided by the preoperative planning software. There was a difference between virtual and real RoM, which can be explained by different factors, specifically the scapula-thoracic (ST) joint. Twenty patients with RSA were assessed at a minimum follow-up of 18 months. Passive RoM in forward elevation abduction, without and with manually locking the ST joint, and in external rotation with arm at side were recorded. The humerus, scapula, and implants were manually segmented on post-operative CTs. Post-operative bony structures were registered to preoperative bony elements. From this registration, a post-operative plan corresponding to the real post-operative implant positioning was generated and the corresponding virtual RoM analysis was recorded. On the post-operative anteroposterior X-rays and 2D-CT coronal planning view, the glenoid horizontal line angle (GH), the metaphyseal horizontal line angle (MH), and the gleno-metaphyseal angle (GMA) were measured to assess the extrinsic glenoid inclination, as well as the relative position of the humeral and glenoid components. There were some significant differences between virtual and post-operative passive abduction and forward elevation, with (55° and 50°, The virtual RoM given by the planning software used in this study differs from the real post-operative passive RoM, except for external rotation. This can be explained by the lack of ST joint and soft tissues simulation. However, in focusing on the virtual GH participation, the simulation looks informative. Some modifications between the glenoid and humerus starting positions before running the motion analysis could be provided for making it more realistic and predictive of the RSA functional results. III.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37240935
pii: jpm13050765
doi: 10.3390/jpm13050765
pmc: PMC10219507
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Références

Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2017 May;103(3):407-413
pubmed: 28238965
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2018 Jan 3;100(1):57-65
pubmed: 29298261
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013 Jul;22(7):948-53
pubmed: 23313370
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017 Jul;26(7):1253-1261
pubmed: 28111179
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2011 Oct;97(6 Suppl):S131-7
pubmed: 21820377
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1978 Sep;(135):165-70
pubmed: 709928
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017 Mar 15;99(6):454-461
pubmed: 28291177
Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 1992;78(6):355-64
pubmed: 1304634
Bone Joint J. 2018 Sep;100-B(9):1182-1186
pubmed: 30168761
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2022 Mar 1;480(3):619-631
pubmed: 34669618
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2021 Apr;30(4):763-771
pubmed: 32763384
Int Orthop. 2020 Mar;44(3):519-530
pubmed: 31900574
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2021 Jun;30(6):1273-1281
pubmed: 33069903
Bone Joint Res. 2019 Sep 03;8(8):378-386
pubmed: 31537995
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014 Sep;23(9):1395-402
pubmed: 24739793
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017 Aug;26(8):1477-1483
pubmed: 28162884
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1976 Mar;58(2):195-201
pubmed: 1254624
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012 Sep;21(9):1184-90
pubmed: 22036549
Int Orthop. 2020 Sep;44(9):1761-1766
pubmed: 32248265
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2014 Aug;134(8):1065-71
pubmed: 24925098
Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 2005 Sep;91(5):399-406
pubmed: 16350996
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015 Feb;24(2):302-9
pubmed: 25183662
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2021 Mar;30(3):561-571
pubmed: 32707326

Auteurs

Julien Berhouet (J)

CHRU Trousseau Service d'Orthopédie Traumatologie, Faculté de Médecine de Tours, Université de Tours, 1C Avenue de la République, 37170 Tours, France.
Equipe Reconnaissance de Forme et Analyse de l'Image, Laboratoire d'Informatique Fondamentale et Appliquée de Tours EA6300, Ecole d'Ingénieurs Polytechnique Universitaire de Tours, Université de Tours, 64 Avenue Portalis, 37200 Tours, France.

Ramy Samargandi (R)

CHRU Trousseau Service d'Orthopédie Traumatologie, Faculté de Médecine de Tours, Université de Tours, 1C Avenue de la République, 37170 Tours, France.
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Jeddah, Jeddah 23218, Saudi Arabia.

Luc Favard (L)

CHRU Trousseau Service d'Orthopédie Traumatologie, Faculté de Médecine de Tours, Université de Tours, 1C Avenue de la République, 37170 Tours, France.

Céline Turbillon (C)

CHRU Trousseau Service d'Orthopédie Traumatologie, Faculté de Médecine de Tours, Université de Tours, 1C Avenue de la République, 37170 Tours, France.

Adrien Jacquot (A)

Centre for Chirurgie des Articulations et du Sport (ARTICS), 24 rue du XXIème Régiment d'Aviation, 54000 Nancy, France.

Marc-Olivier Gauci (MO)

Institut Locomoteur et du Sport, Hôpital Pasteur 2, 30 Voie Romaine, 06000 Nice, France.

Classifications MeSH