Morphometry of the shoulder joint and justification of new modular reverse shoulder endoprosthesis sizes using computed tomography data

Authors

  • Mykola Korzh Sytenko Institute of Spine and Joint Pathology National Academy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine, Kharkiv
  • Vasyl Makarov Municipal non-profit enterprise «City Clinical Hospital № 16» of the Dnipro City Council. Ukraine
  • Natalia Botsva Oles Honchar Dnipro National University. Ukraine
  • Olga Morgun Family Medicine Clinic, Dnipro. Ukraine
  • Olga Pidgaiska Sytenko Institute of Spine and Joint Pathology National Academy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine, Kharkiv
  • Оleksiy Tankut Sytenko Institute of Spine and Joint Pathology National Academy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine, Kharkiv

Keywords:

3D-printing, arthroplasty of the shoulder joint, glenoid, cluster analysis, correlation analysis

Abstract

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty is effective surgery because most of patients have positive long-term results. However, the search for the «perfect» endoprosthesis continues. Objective. To justify the dimensions of a new modular reverse shoulder endoprosthesis using additive technologies based on spiral computed tomography data. Methods. Two data sets of healthy shoulder joints (right — R, left — L) of 100 patients obtained on a spiral computed tomography AQUILION 128 sections (Toshiba, Japan) were processed. Each set consisted of 11 morphometric parameters — linear and angular values. For each of them, three data samples (combined, R and L) are calculated: minimum, maximum, mode, median, mean, standard deviation, distribution asymmetry coefficient. Pearson’s correlation coefficient was calculated, cluster analysis was performed. Results. It is proved that most of the parameters of R and L data sets can be considered homogeneous and can be analyzed as a combined group of 200 cases. It was found that the width and height of the glenoid are more homogeneous data sets, and the value of the endosteal diameter of the humerus decreases in the distal direction. The cervical-diaphyseal angle averages 137.4° ± 4.66°. The correlation between different parameters is more pronounced within most clusters than in the sample as a whole. Conclusions. It is necessary to create different sizes of the distal part of the conical stem, to which securely fix a wide proximal part, as well as in different sizes, in the form of a cup for fixing the liner. The height of the proximal part of the reverse shoulder endoprosthesis should be not less than 20 mm, the diameter of the base of the proximal parts of the stem — 38, 40, 42 mm. It is proposed to use a conical stem of the implant with a wider proximal part, to create the angle 135° between the cup of the proximal part and the stem. Three standard sizes of basic glenoid plates with a diameter of 26, 30, 32 mm are defined. Key words. 3D-printing, arthroplasty of the shoulder joint, glenoid, cluster analysis, correlation analysis.

Author Biographies

Mykola Korzh, Sytenko Institute of Spine and Joint Pathology National Academy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine, Kharkiv

MD, Prof. in Traumatology and Orthopaedics

Vasyl Makarov, Municipal non-profit enterprise «City Clinical Hospital № 16» of the Dnipro City Council. Ukraine

PhD in Orthopaedics and Traumatology

Olga Pidgaiska, Sytenko Institute of Spine and Joint Pathology National Academy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine, Kharkiv

PhD in Traumatology and Orthopaedics

Оleksiy Tankut, Sytenko Institute of Spine and Joint Pathology National Academy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine, Kharkiv

PhD in Traumatology and Orthopаedics

References

Grubhofer, F., Wieser, K., Meyer, D. C., Catanzaro, S., Beeler, S., Riede, U., & Gerber, C. (2016). Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for acute head-splitting, 3- and 4-part fractures of the proximal humerus in the elderly. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, 25(10), 1690-1698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2016.02.024

Monir, J. G., Abeyewardene, D., King, J. J., Wright, T. W., & Schoch, B. S. (2020). Reverse shoulder arthroplasty in patients younger than 65 years, minimum 5-year follow-up. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, 29(6), e215-e221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2019.10.028

Davey, M. G., Davey, M. S., Hurley, E. T., Gaafar, M., Pauzenberger, L., & Mullett, H. (2021). Return to sport following reverse shoulder arthroplasty: A systematic review. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, 30(1), 216-221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2020.08.006

Lorenzetti, A. J., Stone, G. P., Simon, P., & Frankle, M. A. (2016). Biomechanics of reverse shoulder arthroplasty: current concepts. Instructional Course Lectures, 65, 127–143.

Helmkamp, J. K., Bullock, G. S., Amilo, N. R., Guerrero, E. M., Ledbetter, L. S., Sell, T. C., & Garrigues, G. E. (2018). The clinical and radiographic impact of center of rotation lateralization in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: A systematic review. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, 27(11), 2099-2107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2018.07.007

Wright, T., Samitier, G., Alentorn-Geli, E., & Torrens, C. (2015). Reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Part 1: Systematic review of clinical and functional outcomes. International Journal of Shoulder Surgery, 9(1), 24. https://doi.org/10.4103/0973-6042.150226

Boileau, P., Gauci, M., Wagner, E. R., Clowez, G., Chaoui, J., Chelli, M., & Walch, G. (2019). The reverse shoulder arthroplasty angle: A new measurement of glenoid inclination for reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, 28(7), 1281-1290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2018.11.074

Hengg, C., Mayrhofer, P., Euler, S., Wambacher, M., Blauth, M., & Kralinger, F. (2015). The relevance of neutral arm positioning for true Ap-view X-ray to provide true projection of the humeral head shaft angle. Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, 136(2), 213-221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-015-2368-6

Kadavkolan, A. S., & Jawhar, A. (2018). Glenohumeral joint morphometry with reference to anatomic shoulder arthroplasty. Current Orthopaedic Practice, 29(1), 71-83. https://doi.org/10.1097/bco.0000000000000552

Rouleau, D. M., Kidder, J. F., Pons-Villanueva, J., Dynamidis, S., Defranco, M., & Walch, G. (2010). Glenoid version: How to measure it? Validity of different methods in two-dimensional computed tomography scans. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, 19(8), 1230-1237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2010.01.027

McPherson, E. J., Friedman, R. J., An, Y. H., Chokesi, R., & Dooley, R. (1997). Anthropometric study of normal glenohumeral relationships. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, 6(2), 105-112. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1058-2746(97)90030-6

Boileau, P., & Walch, G. (1997). The three-dimensional geometry of the proximal humerus. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British volume, 79-B(5), 857-865. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.79b5.0790857

Erşen, A., Birişik, F., Bayram, S., Şahinkaya, T., Demirel, M., Atalar, A. C., & Demirhan, M. (2019). Isokinetic evaluation of shoulder strength and endurance after reverse shoulder arthroplasty: A comparative study. Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica, 53(6), 452-456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aott.2019.08.001

Assunção, J., Malavolta, E., Beraldo, R., Gracitelli, M., Bordalo-Rodrigues, M., & Ferreira Neto, A. (2017). Impact of shoulder rotation on neck-shaft angle: A clinical study. Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research, 103(6), 865-868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2017.04.007

Ferle, M., Pastor, M., Hagenah, J., Hurschler, C., & Smith, T. (2019). Effect of the humeral neck-shaft angle and glenosphere lateralization on stability of reverse shoulder arthroplasty: A cadaveric study. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, 28(5), 966-973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2018.10.025

Rapidelli, M., & Gambrioli, P. L. (1986). Glenohurneral Osteometry by computed tomography in normal and unstable shoulders. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, (208), 151–156. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-198607000-00030

Xiaowei Xu, Ester, M., Kriegel, H., & Sander, J. (n.d.). A distribution-based clustering algorithm for mining in large spatial databases. Proceedings 14th International Conference on Data Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1109/icde.1998.655795

Matsen, F., Sperling, J., & Lippitt, S. (2016). Rockwood and Matsen’s The Shoulder. Elsevier

Boileau, P., Moineau, G., Roussanne, Y., & O’Shea, K. (2017). BONY increased offset-reversed shoulder arthroplasty (BIO-RSA). JBJS Essential Surgical Techniques, 7(4), e37. https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.st.17.00006

Iyem, C., Serbest, S., & Inal, M. (2017). A morphometric evaluation of the humeral component in shoulder arthroplasty. Biomedical Research, 28(6), 2666–2672.

Pearl, M. L., Kurutz, S., & Postachini, R. (2009). Geometric variables in anatomic replacement of the proximal humerus: How much prosthetic geometry is necessary? Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, 18(3), 366-370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2009.01.011

Jeong, J., & Jung, H. (2015). Optimizing intramedullary entry location on the proximal humerus based on variations of neck-shaft angle. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, 24(9), 1386-1390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2015.01.016

Verstraeten, T., De Wilde, L., & Victor, J. (2018). The normal 3D gleno-humeral relationship and anatomy of the glenoid planes. Journal of the Belgian Society of Radiology, 102(1). https://doi.org/10.5334/jbsr.1346

Published

2021-05-18

Issue

Section

ORIGINAL ARTICLES