Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Glenoid version and size: does gender, ethnicity, or body size play a role?

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Variations in glenoid morphology among patients of different gender, body habitus, and ethnicity have been of interest for surgeons. Understanding these anatomical variations is a critical step in restoring normal glenohumeral structure during shoulder reconstruction surgery.

Methods

Retrospective review of 108 patient shoulder CT scans was performed and glenoid version, AP diameter and height were measured. Statistical multiple regression models were used to investigate the ability of gender and ethnicity to predict glenoid AP diameter, height, and version independently of patient weight and height.

Results

The mean glenoid AP diameter was 24.7 ± 3.5, the mean glenoid height was 31.7 ± 3.7, and the mean glenoid version was 0.05 ± 9.05. According to our regression models, males would be expected to exhibit 8.4° more glenoid retroversion than females (p = 0.003) and have 2.9 mm larger glenoid height compared to females (p = 0.002). The predicted male glenoid AP diameter was 3.4 mm higher than that in females (p < 0.001). Hispanics demonstrated 6.4° more glenoid anteversion compared to African-Americans (p = 0.04). Asians exhibited 4.1 mm smaller glenoid AP diameters than African-Americans (p = 0.002). An increase of 25 kg in patient weight resulted in 1 mm increase in AP diameter (p = 0.01).

Conclusions

Gender is the strongest independent predictor of glenoid size and version. Males exhibited a larger size and more retroverted glenoid. Patient height was found to be predictive of glenoid size only in patients of the same gender. Although variations in glenoid size and version are observed among ethnicities, larger sample size ethnic groups will be necessary to explore the precise relations. Surgeons should consider gender and ethnic variations in the pre-operative planning and surgical restoration of the native glenohumeral relationship.

Level of Evidence: Anatomic Study

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Budge MD, Lewis GS, Schaefer E, Coquia S, Flemming DJ, Armstrong AD (2011) Comparison of standard two-dimensional and three-dimensional corrected glenoid version measurements. J Shoulder Elb Surg 20(4):577–583

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Friedman RJ, Hawthorne KB, Genez BM (1992) The use of computerized tomography in the measurement of glenoid version. J Bone Joint Surg Am 74(7):1032–1037

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Matsumura N, Ogawa K, Kobayashi S, Oki S, Watanabe A, Ikegami H, Toyama Y (2014) Morphologic features of humeral head and glenoid version in the normal glenohumeral joint. J Shoulder Elb Surg 23(11):1724–1730

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Sabesan VJ, Callanan M, Youderian A, Iannotti JP (2014) 3D CT assessment of the relationship between humeral head alignment and glenoid retroversion in glenohumeral osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 96(8):e64

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Iannotti JP, Weiner S, Rodriguez E, Subhas N, Patterson TE, Jun BJ, Ricchetti ET (2015) Three-dimensional imaging and templating improve glenoid implant positioning. J Bone Joint Surg Am 97(8):651–658

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Brems J (1993) The glenoid component in total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elb Surg 2(1):47–54

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Brems J, Churchill RS, Kotschi H (2001) Glenoid size, inclination, and version: an anatomic study. J Shoulder Elb Surg 10(4):327–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Lewis GS, Armstrong AD (2011) Glenoid spherical orientation and version. J Shoulder Elb Surg 20(1):3–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hohmann E, Tetsworth K (2015) Glenoid version and inclination are risk factors for anterior shoulder dislocation. J Shoulder Elb Surg 24(8):1268–1273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Powell K, Kwon YW, Yum JK, Brems JJ, Iannotti JP (2005) Use of three-dimensional computed tomography for the analysis of the glenoid anatomy. J Shoulder Elb Surg 14(1):85–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. De Wilde LF, Berghs BM, VandeVyver F, Schepens A, Verdonk RC (2003) Glenohumeral relationship in the transverse plane of the body. J Shoulder Elb Surg 12(3):260–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Lenart BA, Freedman R, Van Thiel GS, Dhawan A, McGill KC, Basu S, Meyer JR, Provencher CM, Cole BJ, Romeo AA, Verma NN (2014) Magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of normal glenoid length and width: an anatomic study. Arthroscopy 30(8):915–920

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Edelson G (1999) Variations in the retroversion of the humeral head. J Shoulder Elb Surg 8(2):142–145

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Bockmann B, Soschynski S, Lechler P, Ruchholtz S, Debus F, Schwarting T, Frink M (2016) Age-dependent variation of glenohumeral anatomy: a radiological study. Int Orthop 40(1):87–93

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ricchetti ET, Hendel MD, Collins DN, Iannotti JP (2013) Is premorbid glenoid anatomy altered in patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis? Clin Orthop Relat Res 471(9):2932–2939

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Farron A, Terrier A, Buchler P (2006) Risks of loosening of a prosthetic glenoid implanted in retroversion. J Shoulder Elb Surg 15(4):521–526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Matsen FA 3rd (2015) The ream and run: not for every patient, every surgeon or every problem. Int Orthop 39(2):255–261

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hoenecke HR Jr, Hermida JC, Flores-Hernandez C, D’Lima DD (2010) Accuracy of CT-based measurements of glenoid version for total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elb Surg 19(2):166–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Rouleau DM, Kidder JF, Pons-Villanueva J, Dynamidis S, Defranco M, Walch G (2010) Glenoid version: how to measure it? Validity of different methods in two-dimensional computed tomography scans. J Shoulder Elb Surg 19(8):1230–1237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Andrin J, Macaron C, Pottecher P, Martz P, Baulot E, Trouilloud P, Viard B (2016) Determination of a new computed tomography method for measuring the glenoid version and comparing with a reference method. Radio-anatomical and retrospective study. Int Orthop 40(3):525–529

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Poon PC, Ting FS (2012) A 2-dimensional glenoid vault method for measuring glenoid version on computed tomography. J Shoulder Elb Surg 21(3):329–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Green S (1991) How many subjects does It take to do a regression analysis. Multivar Behav Res 26(3):499–510

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Morgan B, Voorhis CRWV (2007) Understanding power and rules of thumb for determining sample sizes. Tutor Quant Methods Psychol 3(2):43–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedics, University of Illinois at Chicago, 835 S. Wolcott Ave., Room E270, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA

    Hristo Ivanov Piponov, David Savin, Domenic Esposito, Brian Schwartz, Vincent Moretti & Benjamin Goldberg

  2. College of Medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA

    Neal Shah

Authors
  1. Hristo Ivanov Piponov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David Savin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Neal Shah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Domenic Esposito
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Brian Schwartz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Vincent Moretti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Benjamin Goldberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hristo Ivanov Piponov.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Statement for human rights

The study was approved by the University of Illinois at Chicago IRB. The IRB protocol number is: #2012–0195

Ethical approval

For this type of study formal consent is not required

Funding

No external funding was provided for this study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Piponov, H.I., Savin, D., Shah, N. et al. Glenoid version and size: does gender, ethnicity, or body size play a role?. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 40, 2347–2353 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-016-3201-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-016-3201-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation