Turgut Tursem TOKMAK, Turan Bilge KIZKAPAN, Abdulhamit MISIR, Mustafa ÖZÇAMDALI, Erdal UZUN

Sex and side differences of three-dimensional Glenoid anthropometric parameters in a normal Turkish population

Aim: Due to anatomical differences, current baseplate designs may lead to incompatibilities in reverse shoulder arthroplasty indifferent populations. We hypothesized that glenoid anthropometric parameters in Turkish subjects would be different from that inother populations.Materials and Methods: Three-dimensional morphology of 200 healthy Turkish shoulders (100 male and 100 females, 93 left and 107right shoulders) was evaluated. Glenoid height, width, version, inclination, circumference, and surface area; glenoid depth, scapularneck length, and scapular neck angle were measured. Sex and side differences were assessed. The correlation between glenoidmorphologic parameters and subject height was assessed. The height corresponding to a 25-mm glenoid width was predicted.Results: There was a significant difference between male and female subjects regarding glenoid height, width, version, depth,circumference, surface area, and patient height (p

PDF

___

1. Cheung YLA, Lie WHC, Chow HL, et al. Are the current size options of glenoid baseplates for reverse shoulder arthroplasty sufficient for our local population? J Orthop Traum Rehabil 2016;21:30-4.
2. Henninger HB, King FK, Tashjian RZ, et al. Biomechanical comparison of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty systems in soft tissue-constrained shoulders. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2014;23:108-17.
3. Nyffeler RW, Werner CML, Gerber C. Biomechanical relevance of glenoid component positioning in the reverse Delta III total shoulder prosthesis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2005;14:524-8.
4. Frankle MA, Teramoto A, Luo ZP, et al. Glenoid morphology in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: Classification and surgical implications. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2009;18:874-85.
5. Yang Y, Zuo J, Liu T, et al. Glenoid morphology and the safe zone for protecting the suprascapular nerve during baseplate fixation in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Int Orthop 2018;42:587-93.
6. Mizuno N, Nonaka S, Ozaki R, et al. Three-dimensional assessment of the normal Japanese glenoid and comparison with the normal French glenoid. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2017;103:1271-5.
7. Smith T, Bäunker A, Krämer M, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of inferior scapula notching of reverse shoulder arthroplasty depending on implant configuration and scapula neck anatomy.Int J Shoulder Surg 2015;9:103-9.
8. Boileau P, Watkinson DJ, Hatzidakis AM, et al. Grammont reverse prosthesis: Design, rationale, and biomechanics. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2005;14:147- 61.
9. Simovitch RW, Zumstein MA, Lohri E, et al. Predictors of scapular notching in patients managed with the delta III reverse total shoulder replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007;89:588-600.
10. Shimozono Y, Arai R, Matsuda S. The dimensions of the scapula glenoid in japanese rotator cuff tear patients. Clin Orthop Surg 2017;9:207-12.
11. Ji JH, Jeong JY, Song HS, et al. Early clinical results of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in the Korean population. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2013;22:1102-107.
12. Chae SW, Kim SY, Lee H, et al. Effect of baseplate size on primary glenoid stability and impingement-free range of motion in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2014;15:417.
13. Harman M, Frankle M, Vasey M, et al. Initial glenoid component fixation in “reverse” total shoulder arthroplasty: a biomechanical evaluation. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2005;14:162-7.
14. Donohue KW, Ricchetti ET, Iannotti JP. Surgical management of the biconcave (B2) glenoid. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 2016;9:30-9.
15. Bryce CD, Pennypacker JL, Kulkarni N, et al. Validation of three-dimensional models of in situ scapulae. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2008;17:825-32.
16. Kwon YW, Powell KA, Yum JK, et al. Use of threedimensional computed tomography for the analysis of the glenoid anatomy. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2005;14:85-90.
17. Ganapathi A, McCarron JA, Chen X, et al. Predicting normal glenoid version from the pathologic scapula: A comparison of 4 methods in 2- and 3-dimensional models. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2011;20:234-44.
18. Maurer A, Fucentese SF, Pfirrmann CWA, et al. Assessment of glenoid inclination on routine clinical radiographs and computed tomography examinations of the shoulder. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2012;21:1096- 103.
19. Churchill RS, Brems JJ, Kotschi H. Glenoid size, inclination, and version: an anatomic study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2001;10:327-32.
20. Ianotti JP, Gabriel JP, Schneck SL, et al. The normal glenohumeral relationship. An anatomical study of one hundred and forty shoulders. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1992;74:491-500.
21. Matsumura N, Oki S, Ogawa K, et al. Three-dimensional anthropometric analysis of the glenohumeral joint in a normal Japanese population. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2016;25:493-501.
22. Merrill A, Guzman K, Miller SL. Gender differences in glenoid anatomy: an anatomic study. Surg Radiol Anat 2009;31:183-9.
23. Mcpherson EJ, Friedman RJ, An YH, et al. Anthropometric study of normal glenohumeral relationships. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 1997;6:105-12.
24. Boileau P, Cheval D, Gauci MO, et al. Automated ThreeDimensional Measurement of Glenoid Version and Inclination in Arthritic Shoulders. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2018;100:57-65.
25. Bokor DJ, O’Sullivan MD, Hazan GJ. Variability of measurement of glenoid version on computed tomography scan. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 1999;8:595- 98.
26. Gregory TM, Sankey A, Augereau B, et al. Accuracy of glenoid component placement in total shoulder arthroplasty and its effect on clinical and radiological outcome in a retrospective, longitudinal, monocentric open study. PLoS One 2013;8:75791.
27. Tackett JJ, Ablove RH. Magnetic resonance imaging study of glenohumeral relationships between genders. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2011;20:1335-9.
28. Nyffeler RW, Werner CML, Simmen BR, et al. Analysis of a retrieved delta III total shoulder prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004;86:1187-91.
29. Paisley KC, Kraeutler MJ, Lazarus MD, et al. Relationship of scapular neck length to scapular notching after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty by use of plain radiographs. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2014;23:882-87.
30. Fortun C, Streit J, Horton S, et al. Scapular neck length and implications for reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: An anatomic study of 442 cadaveric specimens. Int J Shoulder Surg 2015;9:38-42.
31. Bicknell RT, Patterson SD, King GJ, et al. Glenoid vault endosteal dimensions: an anthropometric study with special interest in implant design. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2007;16:96-101.
32. Lévigne C, Garret J, Boileau P, et al. Scapular notching in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: Is it important to avoid it and how? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011;469:2512-20.
33. Mathews S, Burkhard M, Serrano N, et al. Glenoid morphology in light of anatomical and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a dissection- and 3D-CTbased study in male and female body donors. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2017;18:9.