Burak KULAKOĞLU, Alper DEVECİ, Erman CEYHAN, Enver KILIÇ, Yahya Can DURA, Sualp TURAN, Guzelali ÖZDEMİR, Deniz SÖZMEN CILIZ

Is the version angle of the glenoid different in bone and cartilage? An MRI study

Background/aim: To determine whether or not there is a difference between the version of the bone and cartilage surfaces of theglenoid. Axial magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) slices were examined in order to evaluate the measurements taken based on both thecartilage and bone joint surfaces.Materials and methods: A retrospective evaluation was made of the MRI scans of 182 patients. All of the reviewers independentlymeasured the glenoid version angles of all of the patients from 1–182. The process was then repeated, with each reviewer takingsecond measurements of the angles from 1–182. Pearson correlation coefficient analysis was applied to evaluate the interactionand relationships between the measurements taken from the bone and cartilage. The intra- and interobserver interclass correlationcoefficients (ICCs) were assessed. Analysis of variance was applied to determine any interobserver significant differences.Results: The mean glenoid version was determined as –3.58 ± 4.08° in the bone-based measurements and –5.81 ± 4.30° in the cartilagebased measurements. The cartilage- and bone-based measurements were found to have inter- and intraobserver reliability. A statisticallysignificant difference was observed between the mean cartilage-based version and the mean bone-based version. Changes in thecartilage- and bone-based measurements were correlated; however, this change was not linear.Conclusion: The cartilage-based version showed a significant difference from the bone- based version. Therefore, in the preoperativeplanning and evaluation of glenoid-based pathologies, it would be more appropriate to evaluate both the bone and cartilage surface onMRI.

PDF

___

1. Hoenecke HR, Hermida JC, Flores-Hernandez C, D’Lima DD. Accuracy of CT-based measurements of glenoid version for total shoulder arthroplasty. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery 2010; 19 (2): 166-171.
2. Van de Bunt F, Pearl ML, Lee EK, Peng L, Didomenico P. Glenoid version by CT scan: an analysis of clinical measurement error and introduction of a protocol to reduce variability. Skeletal Radiology 2015; 44 (11): 1627-1635.
3. Zale CL, Pace GI, Lewis GS, Chan J, Kim HM. Interdepartmental imaging protocol for clinically based three-dimensional computed tomography can provide accurate measurement of glenoid version. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery 2018; 27 (7): 1297-1305.
4. Churchill RS, Brems JJ, Helmuth Kotschi H. Glenoid size, inclination, and version: an anatomic study. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery 2001; 10 (4): 327-332.
5. Daggett M, Werner B, Collin P, Gauci MO, Chaoui J et al. Correlation between glenoid inclination and critical shoulder angle: a radiographic and computed tomography study. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery 2015; 24 (12): 1948-1953.
6. Frankle MA, Teramoto A, Luo ZP, Levy JC, Pupello D. Glenoid morphology in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: classification and surgical implications. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery 2009; 18 (6): 874-85.
7. Fulin P, Kysilko M, Pokorny D, Padr R, Kasprikova N et al. Study of the variability of scapular inclination and the glenoid version - considerations for preoperative planning: clinicalradiological study. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2017; 18 (1): 16. doi: 10.1186/s12891-016-1381-84
8. Lewis GS, Armstrong AD. Glenoid spherical orientation and version. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery 2011; 20 (1): 3-11.
9. Piponov HI, Savin D, Shah N, Domenic Esposito D, Schwartz B et al. Glenoid version and size: does gender, ethnicity, or body size play a role? International Orthopaedics 2016; 40 (11): 2347-2353.
10. Staeubli HU, Bosshard C, Porcellini P, Rauschning W. Magnetic resonance imaging for articular cartilage: cartilage-bone mismatch. Clinics in Sports Medicine 2002; 21(3): 417-433.
11. Friedman RJ, Hawthorne KB, Genez BM. The use of computerized tomography in the measurement of glenoid version. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-American Volume 1992; 74 (7): 1032-37.
12. Brewer B, Wubben R, Carrera G. Excessive retroversion of the glenoid cavity. A cause of non-traumatic posterior instability of the shoulder. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-American Volume 1986; 68 (5): 724-731.
13. Hopkins AR, Hansen UN, Amis AA, Emery R. The effects of glenoid component alignment variations on cement mantle stresses in total shoulder arthroplasty. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery 2004; 13 (6): 668-775.
14. Iannotti JP, Norris TR. Influence of preoperative factors on outcome of shoulder arthroplasty for glenohumeral osteoarthritis. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-American Volume 2003; 85-A (2): 251-258.
15. Mullaji AB, Beddow FH, Lamb GH. CT measurement of glenoid erosion in arthritis. Journal of Bone and Joint SurgeryBritish Volume 1994; 76 (3): 384-388.
16. Weishaupt D, Zanetti M, Nyffeler RW, Gerber C, Hodler J. Posterior glenoid rim deficiency in recurrent (atraumatic) posterior shoulder instability. Skeletal Radiology 2000; 29 (4): 204-210.
17. Yian EH, Werner CM, Nyffeler RW, Pfirrmann CW, Ramappa A et al. Radiographic and computed tomography analysis of cemented pegged polyethylene glenoid components in total shoulder replacement. Journal of Bone and Joint SurgeryAmerican Volume 2005; 87 (9): 1928-1936.
18. Habermeyer P, Magosch P, Lichtenberg S. Three-dimensional glenoid deformity in patients with osteoarthritis: a radiographic analysis. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-American Volume 2006; 88 (6): 1301-1307.
19. Hoenecke HR, Hermida JC, Dembitsky N, Patil S, D’Lima DD. Optimizing glenoid component position using threedimensional computed tomography reconstruction. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery 2008; 17 (4): 637-641.
20. Humphrey CS, Kelly JD, Norris TR. Optimizing glenosphere position and fixation in reverse shoulder arthroplasty, part two: the three column concept. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery 2008; 17(4):595-601.
21. Shapiro TA, McGarry MH, Gupta R, Lee YS, Lee TQ. Biomechanical effects of glenoid retroversion in total shoulder arthroplasty. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery 2007; 16 (3): 90-5.
22. Kwon YW, Powell KA, Yum JK, Brems JJ, Iannotti JP. Use of three dimensional computed tomography for the analysis of the glenoid anatomy. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery 2005; 14 (1): 85-90.
23. Anthony J, Varughese I, Glatt V, Tetsworth K, Hohmann E. Influence of the labrum on version and diameter of the glenoid: a morphometric study using magnetic resonance images. Arthroscopy 2017; 33 (8): 1442-1447.