ABSTRACT
Deep knowledge of the shape and dimensions of the glenoid, and variations in normal anatomy of glenoid, are important in the design and fitting of glenoid component in total shoulder arthroplasty. It is also essential while dealing with the pathological conditions like osseous Bankart lesion, osteochondral defects, etc. MethodsThe cross-sectional study was carried out on 122 undamaged dry adult human scapulae. Out of these 122 scapulae, 62 belonged to right side and 60 belonged to left side. Parameters studied were Maximum Scapular Length, Maximum Scapular Breadth, Vertical Glenoid Diameter (VGD), Transverse Glenoid Diameter I (TGD I), Transverse Glenoid Diameter II (TGD II) and Shape of the glenoid cavity. ResultsThe mean maximum scapular length observed was 140.77 ± 8.19 mm on right and 142.30 ± 7.99; the mean maximum scapular breadth was 100.70 ± 7.70 mm on right side and 99.88 ± 5.57 mm on the left; the mean vertical glenoid diameter was 36.09 ± 2.52 mm on the right and 36.40 ± 1.86 mm on the left side; the mean transverse glenoid diameter I (TGD I) was 24.40 ± 3.67 mm on the right side and 23.57 ± 3.41 mm on the left side; the mean transverse glenoid diameter II (TGD II) was 16.02 ± 2.94 mm on the right side and 16.37 ± 3.35 mm on the left side. In all the measurements bilateral differences were not statistically significant (p values ˃0.05). The most common shape of glenoid cavity recorded in the present study was pear shape (50.82%) followed by inverted comma shape (36.89%). The least common shape was oval (12.30%). ConclusionsThe parameters studied were with minimal regional differences when compared to those of other authors in India except that in shape which definitely differs from others.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: We aimed to evaluate whether the use of our novel patient-specific guide (PSG) with 3-dimensional reconstruction in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) would allow accurate and reliable implantation of the glenoid and humeral components. METHODS: 20 fresh-frozen cadaveric shoulders were used. The PSG group (n=10) and conventional group (n=10) was evaluated the accuracy and reproducibility of implant positioning between before and after surgery on the computed tomography image. RESULTS: The superoinferior and anteroposterior offset in the glenoid component were 0.42 ± 0.07, 0.50 ± 0.08 in the conventional group and 0.45 ± 0.03, 0.46 ± 0.02 in the PSG group. The inclination and version angles were −1.93° ± 4.31°, 2.27° ± 5.91° and 0.46° ± 0.02°, 3.38° ± 2.79°. The standard deviation showed a smaller difference in the PSG group. The anteroposterior and lateromedial humeral canal center offset in the humeral component were 0.45 ± 0.12, 0.48 ± 0.15 in the conventional group and 0.46 ± 0.59 (p=0.794), 0.46 ± 0.06 (p=0.702) in the PSG group. The PSG showed significantly better humeral stem alignment. CONCLUSIONS: The use of PSGs with 3-dimensional reconstruction reduces variabilities in glenoid and humerus component positions and prevents extreme positioning errors in RTSA.