Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 3 of 3
Results per page:
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 106-B, Issue 11 | Pages 1284 - 1292
1 Nov 2024
Moroder P Poltaretskyi S Raiss P Denard PJ Werner BC Erickson BJ Griffin JW Metcalfe N Siegert P

Aims. The objective of this study was to compare simulated range of motion (ROM) for reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) with and without adjustment for scapulothoracic orientation in a global reference system. We hypothesized that values for simulated ROM in preoperative planning software with and without adjustment for scapulothoracic orientation would be significantly different. Methods. A statistical shape model of the entire humerus and scapula was fitted into ten shoulder CT scans randomly selected from 162 patients who underwent rTSA. Six shoulder surgeons independently planned a rTSA in each model using prototype development software with the ability to adjust for scapulothoracic orientation, the starting position of the humerus, as well as kinematic planes in a global reference system simulating previously described posture types A, B, and C. ROM with and without posture adjustment was calculated and compared in all movement planes. Results. All movement planes showed significant differences when comparing protocols with and without adjustment for posture. The largest mean difference was seen in external rotation, being 62° (SD 16°) without adjustment compared to 25° (SD 9°) with posture adjustment (p < 0.001), with the highest mean difference being 49° (SD 15°) in type C. Mean extension was 57° (SD 18°) without adjustment versus 24° (SD 11°) with adjustment (p < 0.001) and the highest mean difference of 47° (SD 18°) in type C. Mean abducted internal rotation was 69° (SD 11°) without adjustment versus 31° (SD 6°) with posture adjustment (p < 0.001), showing the highest mean difference of 51° (SD 11°) in type C. Conclusion. The present study demonstrates that accounting for scapulothoracic orientation has a significant impact on simulated ROM for rTSA in all motion planes, specifically rendering vastly lower values for external rotation, extension, and high internal rotation. The substantial differences observed in this study warrant a critical re-evaluation of all previously published studies that examined component choice and placement for optimized ROM in rTSA using conventional preoperative planning software. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(11):1284–1292


Bone & Joint Open
Vol. 2, Issue 7 | Pages 552 - 561
28 Jul 2021
Werthel J Boux de Casson F Burdin V Athwal GS Favard L Chaoui J Walch G

Aims

The aim of this study was to describe a quantitative 3D CT method to measure rotator cuff muscle volume, atrophy, and balance in healthy controls and in three pathological shoulder cohorts.

Methods

In all, 102 CT scans were included in the analysis: 46 healthy, 21 cuff tear arthropathy (CTA), 18 irreparable rotator cuff tear (IRCT), and 17 primary osteoarthritis (OA). The four rotator cuff muscles were manually segmented and their volume, including intramuscular fat, was calculated. The normalized volume (NV) of each muscle was calculated by dividing muscle volume to the patient’s scapular bone volume. Muscle volume and percentage of muscle atrophy were compared between muscles and between cohorts.


Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 8, Issue 8 | Pages 357 - 366
1 Aug 2019
Lädermann A Tay E Collin P Piotton S Chiu C Michelet A Charbonnier C

Objectives

To date, no study has considered the impact of acromial morphology on shoulder range of movement (ROM). The purpose of our study was to evaluate the effects of lateralization of the centre of rotation (COR) and neck-shaft angle (NSA) on shoulder ROM after reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) in patients with different scapular morphologies.

Methods

3D computer models were constructed from CT scans of 12 patients with a critical shoulder angle (CSA) of 25°, 30°, 35°, and 40°. For each model, shoulder ROM was evaluated at a NSA of 135° and 145°, and lateralization of 0 mm, 5 mm, and 10 mm for seven standardized movements: glenohumeral abduction, adduction, forward flexion, extension, internal rotation with the arm at 90° of abduction, as well as external rotation with the arm at 10° and 90° of abduction.