Abstract
Purpose
To understand the geometry of the proximal humerus and glenoid fossa to facilitate the design of components used in shoulder arthroplasty. The aim is to evaluate the geometry of the proximal humerus and glenoid fossa and their relationship using a MicroScribe 3D digitizer.
Methods
Scans and measurements were obtained from 20 pairs of dry proximal humeri and scapulae [10 female and 10 male cadavers: median age 81 years (range 70–94 years)] using a MicroScribe 3D digitizer and Rhinoceros software.
Results
Means (±SD) of humeral inclination, medial wall angle of the bicipital groove, and radius of the humeral head values were 135 ± 11°, 39 ± 19°, and 14 ± 3 mm, respectively. Means (±SD) of glenoid height and width were 35 ± 4 and 26 ± 4 mm, while the means (±SD) of the angles of glenoid inclination, retroversion, and rotation were 87 ± 32°, 96 ± 10°, and 9 ± 6°, respectively. A significant difference in glenoid height (P ≤ 0.002) and width (P ≤ 0.0001) was observed between males and females, despite them having almost an identical radius of the humeral head, glenoid inclination, retroversion, and angle of rotation. There was also a significant difference (P ≤ 0.01) in the angle of glenoid retroversion between the right and left sides.
Conclusions
Using a MicroScribe 3D digitizer, the glenoid fossa was observed to be significantly smaller in females than males; furthermore, there was a difference in glenoid retroversion between the right and left sides.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abboud J, Bartolozzi A, Widmer B, Demola P (2010) Bicipital groove morphology on MRI has no correlation to intra-articular biceps tendon pathology. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 19:790–794. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2010.04.044
Alobaidy M, Soames R (2016) Evaluation of the coracoid and coracoacromial arch geometry on Thiel-embalmed cadavers using the three-dimensional MicroScribe digitizer. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 25:136–141. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2015.08.036
Boileau P, Walch G (1997) The three-dimensional geometry of the proximal humerus Implications for surgical technique and prosthetic design. J Bone Joint Surg Br 79:857–865. doi:10.1302/0301-620x.79b5.7579
Bokor D, O’sullivan M, Hazan G (1999) Variability of measurement of glenoid version on computed tomography scan. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 8:595–598. doi:10.1016/S1058-2746(99)90096-4
Checroun A, Hawkins C, Kummer F, Zuckerman J (2002) Fit of current glenoid component designs: an anatomic cadaver study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 11:614–617. doi:10.1067/mse.2002.126099
Churchill R, Brems J, Kotschic H (2001) Glenoid size, inclination, and version: an anatomic study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 10:327–332. doi:10.1067/mse.2001.115269
Cone R, Danzig L, Resnick D, Goldman A (1983) The bicipital groove: radiographic, anatomic, and pathologic study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 141:781–788
Friedman RJ, Hawthorne KB, Genez BM (1992) The use of computed tomography in the measurement of glenoid version. J Bone Joint Surg Am 74:1032–1037. doi:10.1186/1749-799X-9-17
George D, Mallery P (2003) SPSS for Windows step by step: a simple guide and reference, 4th edn. Allyn & Bacon, Boston
Harrold F, Wigderowitz C (2013) Humeral head arthroplasty and its ability to restore original humeral head geometry. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 22:15–121. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2012.01.027
Hertel R, Knothe U, Ballmer F (2002) Geometry of the proximal humerus and implications for prosthetic design. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 11:331–338. doi:10.1067/mse.2002.124429
Hitchcock H, Bechtol C (1948) Painful shoulder. J Bone Joint Surg Am 30:263–273
Kandemir U, Allaire R, Jolly J, Debski R, McMahon P (2006) The relationship between the orientation of the glenoid and tears of the rotator cuff. J Bone Joint Surg 88:1105–1109. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.88B8.17732
Kwon Y, Powell K, Yum J, Brems J, Iannotti J (2005) Use of three-dimensional computed tomography for the analysis of the glenoid anatomy. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 14:85–90. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2004.04.011
Mallon W, Brown H, Vogler J III, Martinez S (1992) Radiographic and geometric anatomy of the scapula. Clin Orthop Rel Res 277:142–154. doi:10.1097/00003086-199204000-00017
Merrill A, Guzman K, Miller S (2009) Gender differences in glenoid anatomy: an anatomic study. Surg Radiol Anat 31:183–189. doi:10.1007/s00276-008-0425-3
Moore K, Dalley A, Agur A (2006) Clinically oriented anatomy. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 671–709
Murlimanju B, Pai M, Kumar C, Prabhu L, Shreya M, Prashanth K, Rao C (2012) Anthropometric study of the bicipital groove in Indians and its clinical implications. Chang Gung Med J 35:155. doi:10.4103/2319-4170.106156
Rajput H, Vyas K, Shroff B (2012) A study of morphological patterns of glenoid cavity of scapula. Natl J Med Res 2:504–507
Robertson D, Yuan J, Bigliani L, Flatow E, Yamaguchi K (2000) Three dimensional analysis of the proximal part of the humerus: relevance to arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 82:1594
Strauss E, Roche C, Flurin P, Wright T, Zuckerman J (2009) The glenoid in shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 18:819–833. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2009.05.008
Vettivel S, Indrasingh I, Chandi G, Chandi S (1992) Variations in the intertubercular sulcus of the humerus related to handedness. J Anat 180:321
Von Schroeder H, Kuiper S, Botte M (2001) Osseous anatomy of the scapula. Clin Orthop Rel Res 383:131–139. doi:10.1097/00003086-200102000-00015
Wirth M, Ondrla J, Southworth C, Kaar K, Anderson B, Rockwood C III (2007) Replicating proximal humeral articular geometry with a third-generation implant: a radiographic study in cadaveric shoulders. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 16:111–116. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2006.09.008
Acknowledgements
Many thanks to Taibah University for providing financial support to WO during the study and to Umm Al-Qura University and King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Science, Saudi Arabia for providing MA and AA the opportunity to participate in the study. Special thanks to Thais Lopez, University of Sao Paulo, Brazil for her help during the study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethical approval
As the study was conducted on cadaveric material, relevant consent had been obtained at the time of body donation in accordance with the Human Anatomy (Scotland) Act 2006.
Informed consent
Obtained prior to and at the time of body donation.
Conflict of interest
None of the authors have any conflict of interest with the content of this manuscript.
Funding
WO received funding from Taibah University.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Owaydhah, W.H., Alobaidy, M.A., Alraddadi, A.S. et al. Three-dimensional analysis of the proximal humeral and glenoid geometry using MicroScribe 3D digitizer. Surg Radiol Anat 39, 767–772 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00276-016-1782-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00276-016-1782-y