Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

General Orthopaedics

MEASUREMENT METHODS FOR HUMERAL RETROVERSION USING 2D COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY SCANS: WHICH IS MOST CONCORDANT WITH THE STANDARD METHOD?

The International Society for Technology in Arthroplasty (ISTA), 30th Annual Congress, Seoul, South Korea, September 2017. Part 1 of 2.



Abstract

Background

Humeral retroversion is variable among individuals, and there are several measurement methods. This study was conducted to compare the concordance and reliability between the standard method and 5 other measurement methods on Twodimensional (2D) computed tomography (CT) scans.

Methods

CT scans from 21 patients who underwent shoulder arthroplasty (19 women and 2 men; mean age, 70.1 years [range, 42 to 81 years]) were analyzed. The elbow transepicondylar axis was used as a distal reference. Proximal reference points included the central humeral head axis (standard method), the axis of the humeral center to 9 mm posterior to the posterior margin of the bicipital groove (method 1), the central axis of the bicipital groove –30° (method 2), the base axis of the triangular shaped metaphysis +2.5° (method 3), the distal humeral head central axis +2.4° (method 4), and contralateral humeral head retroversion (method 5). Measurements were conducted independently by two orthopedic surgeons.

Results

The mean humeral retroversion was 31.42° ± 12.10° using the standard method, and 29.70° ± 11.66° (method 1), 30.64°± 11.24° (method 2), 30.41° ± 11.17° (method 3), 32.14° ± 11.70° (method 4), and 34.15° ± 11.47° (method 5) for the other methods. Interobserver reliability and intraobserver reliability exceeded 0.75 for all methods. On the test to evaluate the equality of the standard method to the other methods, the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) of method 2 and method 4 were different from the ICC of the standard method in surgeon A (p < 0.05), and the ICCs of method 2 and method 3 were different form the ICC of the standard method in surgeon B (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

Humeral version measurement using the posterior margin of the bicipital groove (method 1) would be most concordant with the standard method even though all 5 methods showed excellent agreements.


Email: