Search

Background: The aim of our study was to evaluate the accuracy of manual determination of the three key points defining the anatomical plane of the scapula, which conditions the reliability of planning software programs based on manual method. Method: We included 82 scapula computed tomography scans (56 pathologic and 26 normal glenoid), excluding truncation and major three-dimensional artifact. Four observers independently picked the three key points for each case. Inter- and intra-observer agreement was calculated for each point, using the intraclass correlation method. The mean error (mm) between the observers was calculated as the diameter of the smallest sphere including the four chosen positions. Results: Lower inter-observer agreement was found for the trigonum superoinferior position and for the glenoid center anteroposterior position. The mean positioning error between the four observers was 6.9 mm for the trigonum point, and error greater than 10 mm was recorded in 25% of the cases. The mean positioning error was 3.5 mm for the glenoid center in altered glenoid, compared to 1.8 mm for normal glenoid. Discussion: Manual determination of an anatomical plane of the scapula suffers from inaccuracy especially due to the variability in trigonum picking, and in a lesser extent, to the variability of glenoid center picking in altered glenoid. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The etiology of humeral posterior subluxation remains unknown, and it has been hypothesized that horizontal muscle imbalance could cause this condition. The objective of this study was to compare the ratio of anterior to posterior rotator cuff muscle and deltoid volumes as a function of humeral subluxation and glenoid morphology when analyzed as continuous variable in arthritic shoulders., Methods: Three hundred and thirty-three (273 arthritic and 60 healthy controls) CT scans of shoulders were included in this study and were segmented automatically. For each muscle, the volume of muscle fibers without intra-muscular fat was then measured. The ratio between the volume of the subscapularis and the volume of the infraspinatus + teres minor (AP ratio) and the ratio between the anterior and posterior deltoid (AP deltoid ) were calculated. Statistical analyses were performed to determine whether a correlation could be found between these ratios and glenoid version/ humeral subluxation/glenoid type in the Walch classification., Results: Within the arthritic cohort, no statistically significant difference was found between the AP ratio between A and type B glenoids (1.09 ± 0.22 versus 1.03 ± 0.16 p=0.09), between A and D type glenoids (1.09 ± 0.22 versus 1.12 ± 0.27, p=0.77) nor between the A and C type glenoids (1.09 ± 0.22 versus 1.10 ± 0.19, p=1). No correlation was found between AP ratio and glenoid version/humeral subluxation (rho =-0.0360, p=0.55; rho = 0.076; p=0.21). The AP deltoid ratio of type A glenoids was significantly greater than that of type B glenoids (0.48 ± 0.15 versus 0.35 ± 0.16, p< 0.01), and type C glenoids (0.48 ± 0.15 versus 0.21±0.10, p < 0.01) but not significantly different from the AP deltoid ratio of type D glenoids (0.48 ± 0.15 versus 0.64 ± 0.34, p=1). When evaluating both healthy control and arthritic shoulders, moderate correlations were found between AP deltoid ratio and glenoid version/humeral subluxation (rho=0.55, p<0.01; rho=-0.61, p<0.01)., Conclusion: As opposed to previous two-dimensional CT scan studies, we did not find any correlation between AP muscle volume ratio and glenoid parameters in arthritic shoulders. Therefore, rotator cuff muscle imbalance does not seem to be associated with posterior humeral subluxation leading to posterior glenoid erosion and subsequent retroversion characteristic of Walch B glenoids. However, our results could suggest that a larger posterior deltoid pulls the humerus posteriorly into posterior subluxation, but this requires further evaluation as the deltoid follows the humerus possibly leading to secondary asymmetry between the anterior and the posterior deltoid., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)