Top

Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy

Published in:

01-07-2017 | Original Article

Three-dimensional analysis of the proximal humeral and glenoid geometry using MicroScribe 3D digitizer

Authors: Wejdan H. Owaydhah, Mohammad A. Alobaidy, Abdulrahman S. Alraddadi, Roger W. Soames

Published in: Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy | Issue 7/2017

Abstract

Purpose

To understand the geometry of the proximal humerus and glenoid fossa to facilitate the design of components used in shoulder arthroplasty. The aim is to evaluate the geometry of the proximal humerus and glenoid fossa and their relationship using a MicroScribe 3D digitizer.

Methods

Scans and measurements were obtained from 20 pairs of dry proximal humeri and scapulae [10 female and 10 male cadavers: median age 81 years (range 70–94 years)] using a MicroScribe 3D digitizer and Rhinoceros software.

Results

Means (±SD) of humeral inclination, medial wall angle of the bicipital groove, and radius of the humeral head values were 135 ± 11°, 39 ± 19°, and 14 ± 3 mm, respectively. Means (±SD) of glenoid height and width were 35 ± 4 and 26 ± 4 mm, while the means (±SD) of the angles of glenoid inclination, retroversion, and rotation were 87 ± 32°, 96 ± 10°, and 9 ± 6°, respectively. A significant difference in glenoid height (P ≤ 0.002) and width (P ≤ 0.0001) was observed between males and females, despite them having almost an identical radius of the humeral head, glenoid inclination, retroversion, and angle of rotation. There was also a significant difference (P ≤ 0.01) in the angle of glenoid retroversion between the right and left sides.

Conclusions

Using a MicroScribe 3D digitizer, the glenoid fossa was observed to be significantly smaller in females than males; furthermore, there was a difference in glenoid retroversion between the right and left sides.

Abboud J, Bartolozzi A, Widmer B, Demola P (2010) Bicipital groove morphology on MRI has no correlation to intra-articular biceps tendon pathology. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 19:790–794. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2010.04.044 CrossRefPubMed

Alobaidy M, Soames R (2016) Evaluation of the coracoid and coracoacromial arch geometry on Thiel-embalmed cadavers using the three-dimensional MicroScribe digitizer. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 25:136–141. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2015.08.036 CrossRefPubMed

Boileau P, Walch G (1997) The three-dimensional geometry of the proximal humerus Implications for surgical technique and prosthetic design. J Bone Joint Surg Br 79:857–865. doi:10.1302/0301-620x.79b5.7579 CrossRefPubMed

Bokor D, O’sullivan M, Hazan G (1999) Variability of measurement of glenoid version on computed tomography scan. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 8:595–598. doi:10.1016/S1058-2746(99)90096-4 CrossRefPubMed

Checroun A, Hawkins C, Kummer F, Zuckerman J (2002) Fit of current glenoid component designs: an anatomic cadaver study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 11:614–617. doi:10.1067/mse.2002.126099 CrossRefPubMed

Churchill R, Brems J, Kotschic H (2001) Glenoid size, inclination, and version: an anatomic study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 10:327–332. doi:10.1067/mse.2001.115269 CrossRefPubMed

Cone R, Danzig L, Resnick D, Goldman A (1983) The bicipital groove: radiographic, anatomic, and pathologic study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 141:781–788CrossRefPubMed

Friedman RJ, Hawthorne KB, Genez BM (1992) The use of computed tomography in the measurement of glenoid version. J Bone Joint Surg Am 74:1032–1037. doi:10.1186/1749-799X-9-17 CrossRefPubMed

George D, Mallery P (2003) SPSS for Windows step by step: a simple guide and reference, 4th edn. Allyn & Bacon, Boston

10.

Harrold F, Wigderowitz C (2013) Humeral head arthroplasty and its ability to restore original humeral head geometry. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 22:15–121. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2012.01.027 CrossRef

11.

Hertel R, Knothe U, Ballmer F (2002) Geometry of the proximal humerus and implications for prosthetic design. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 11:331–338. doi:10.1067/mse.2002.124429 CrossRefPubMed

12.

Hitchcock H, Bechtol C (1948) Painful shoulder. J Bone Joint Surg Am 30:263–273CrossRef

13.

Kandemir U, Allaire R, Jolly J, Debski R, McMahon P (2006) The relationship between the orientation of the glenoid and tears of the rotator cuff. J Bone Joint Surg 88:1105–1109. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.88B8.17732 CrossRef

14.

Kwon Y, Powell K, Yum J, Brems J, Iannotti J (2005) Use of three-dimensional computed tomography for the analysis of the glenoid anatomy. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 14:85–90. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2004.04.011 CrossRefPubMed

15.

Mallon W, Brown H, Vogler J III, Martinez S (1992) Radiographic and geometric anatomy of the scapula. Clin Orthop Rel Res 277:142–154. doi:10.1097/00003086-199204000-00017

16.

Merrill A, Guzman K, Miller S (2009) Gender differences in glenoid anatomy: an anatomic study. Surg Radiol Anat 31:183–189. doi:10.1007/s00276-008-0425-3 CrossRefPubMed

17.

Moore K, Dalley A, Agur A (2006) Clinically oriented anatomy. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 671–709

18.

Murlimanju B, Pai M, Kumar C, Prabhu L, Shreya M, Prashanth K, Rao C (2012) Anthropometric study of the bicipital groove in Indians and its clinical implications. Chang Gung Med J 35:155. doi:10.4103/2319-4170.106156 PubMed

19.

Rajput H, Vyas K, Shroff B (2012) A study of morphological patterns of glenoid cavity of scapula. Natl J Med Res 2:504–507

20.

Robertson D, Yuan J, Bigliani L, Flatow E, Yamaguchi K (2000) Three dimensional analysis of the proximal part of the humerus: relevance to arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 82:1594CrossRefPubMed

21.

Strauss E, Roche C, Flurin P, Wright T, Zuckerman J (2009) The glenoid in shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 18:819–833. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2009.05.008 CrossRefPubMed

22.

Vettivel S, Indrasingh I, Chandi G, Chandi S (1992) Variations in the intertubercular sulcus of the humerus related to handedness. J Anat 180:321PubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Von Schroeder H, Kuiper S, Botte M (2001) Osseous anatomy of the scapula. Clin Orthop Rel Res 383:131–139. doi:10.1097/00003086-200102000-00015 CrossRef

24.

Wirth M, Ondrla J, Southworth C, Kaar K, Anderson B, Rockwood C III (2007) Replicating proximal humeral articular geometry with a third-generation implant: a radiographic study in cadaveric shoulders. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 16:111–116. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2006.09.008 CrossRef

Title: Three-dimensional analysis of the proximal humeral and glenoid geometry using MicroScribe 3D digitizer
Authors: Wejdan H. Owaydhah
Mohammad A. Alobaidy
Abdulrahman S. Alraddadi
Roger W. Soames
Publication date: 01-07-2017
Publisher: Springer Paris
Published in: Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy / Issue 7/2017
Print ISSN: 0930-1038
Electronic ISSN: 1279-8517
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00276-016-1782-y

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Three-dimensional analysis of the proximal humeral and glenoid geometry using MicroScribe 3D digitizer

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 7/2017

Microsurgical anatomy of branches of musculocutaneous nerve: clinical relevance for spastic elbow surgery

Duplicate origin of the right vertebral artery in which both channels arose from the extreme proximal right subclavian artery: a case report

Anatomy of the falcine sinus during the prenatal period

Level of conus medullaris termination in adult population analyzed by kinetic magnetic resonance imaging

Anatomical variations of the greater palatine canal in cone-beam computed tomography

Communicating branches between lingual and hypoglossal nerve: observation using Sihler’s staining technique