Advertisement

Pediatric Radiology

, Volume 48, Issue 12, pp 1779–1785 | Cite as

Modified Friedman technique: a new proposed method of measuring glenoid version in the setting of glenohumeral dysplasia

  • Matthew G. DitzlerEmail author
  • J. Herman Kan
  • Maddy Artunduaga
  • Siddharth P. Jadhav
  • Bryce R. Bell
  • Wei Zhang
  • Robert C. Orth
Original Article

Abstract

Background

Glenoid version angles are measured to objectively follow changes related to glenohumeral dysplasia in the setting of brachial plexus birth palsy. Measuring glenoid version on cross-sectional imaging was initially described by Friedman et al. in 1992. Recent literature for non-dysplastic shoulders advocates time-consuming reconstructions and reformations for an accurate assessment of glenoid version.

Objective

To compare Friedman’s original method for measuring glenoid version to a novel technique we developed (“modified Friedman”) with the reference standard of true axial reformations.

Materials and methods

With institutional review board approval, we retrospectively examined 30 normal and dysplastic shoulders obtained from magnetic resonance imaging examinations of 30 patients with an established diagnosis of brachial plexus birth palsy between January 2012 and September 2017. Four pediatric radiologists performed glenoid version measurements using Friedman’s method, the modified Friedman method and a previously described true axial reformation method. The modified Friedman technique better accounts for scapular positioning by selecting a reference point related to the acromion-scapular body interface. Inter-rater reliability and inter-method agreement were assessed using intraclass correlation, paired t-tests and mixed linear model analysis. Equivalence tests between methods were performed per reader.

Results

Glenoid version measurements were significantly different when comparing Friedman’s method to true axial reformations in normal (-10.8±5.7° [mean±standard deviation] vs. -8.8±5.3°; P≤0.001) and dysplastic shoulders (-34.6±17.7° vs. -28.1±17.5°; P≤0.001). Glenoid version measurements were not significantly different when comparing the modified Friedman’s method to true axial reformations in normal (-6.3±5.8° vs. -8.8±5.3°; P=0.06) and dysplastic shoulders (-29.0±18.3° vs. -28.1±17.5°; P=0.06). Friedman’s method was not equivalent to true axial reformations for measurements in dysplastic shoulders for all readers (P=0.68, 0.81, 0.86, 0.99); the modified Friedman method was equivalent to of true axial reformations for measurements in dysplastic shoulders for 3 of 4 readers (P≤0.001, P≤0.001, P≤0.001, P=0.10).

Conclusion

In glenohumeral dysplasia, the modified Friedman method and post-processed true axial reformations provide statistically similar and reproducible values. We propose that our modified Friedman technique can be performed in lieu of post-processed true axial reformations to generate glenoid version measurements.

Keywords

Brachial plexus birth palsy Children Glenohumeral dysplasia Glenoid version Magnetic resonance imaging Shoulder 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

None

References

  1. 1.
    Hale HB, Bae DS, Waters PM (2010) Current concepts in the management of brachial plexus birth palsy. J Hand Surg Am 35:322–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Foad SL, Mehlman CT, Ying J (2008) The epidemiology of neonatal brachial plexus palsy in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am 90:1258–1264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Waters PM (1997) Obstetric brachial plexus injuries: evaluation and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 5:205–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kay SP (1998) Obstetrical brachial palsy. Br J Plast Surg 51:43–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Waters PM (2005) Update on management of pediatric brachial plexus palsy. J Pediatr Orthop 25:116–126PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chagas-Neto FA, Dalto VF, Crema MD et al (2016) Imaging assessment of glenohumeral dysplasia secondary to brachial plexus birth palsy. Radiol Bras 49:144–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Moukoko D, Ezaki M, Wilkes D et al (2004) Posterior shoulder dislocation in infants with neonatal brachial plexus palsy. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86-A:787–793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Waters PM, Smith GR, Jaramillo D (1998) Glenohumeral deformity secondary to brachial plexus birth palsy. J Bone Joint Surg Am 80:668–677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    van der Sluijs JA, van der Meij M, Verbeke J et al (2003) Measuring secondary deformities of the shoulder in children with obstetric brachial plexus lesion: reliability of three methods. J Pediatr Orthop B 12:211–214PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Waters PM (1999) Comparison of the natural history, the outcome of microsurgical repair, and the outcome of operative reconstruction in brachial plexus birth palsy. J Bone Joint Surg Am 81:649–659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Randelli M, Gambrioli PL (1986) Glenohumeral osteometry by computed tomography in normal and unstable shoulders. Clin Orthop Relat Res 208:151–156Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Friedman RJ, Hawthorne KB, Genez BM (1992) The use of computerized tomography in the measurement of glenoid version. J Bone Joint Surg Am 74:1032–1037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bokor DJ, O'Sullivan MD, Hazan GJ (1999) Variability of measurement of glenoid version on computed tomography scan. J Shoulder Elb Surg 8:595–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Couteau B, Mansat P, Darmana R et al (2000) Morphological and mechanical analysis of the glenoid by 3D geometric reconstruction using computed tomography. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 15 Suppl 1:S8–S12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bryce CD, Davison AC, Lewis GS et al (2010) Two-dimensional glenoid version measurements vary with coronal and sagittal scapular rotation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 92:692–699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hoenecke HR Jr, Hermida JC, Flores-Hernandez C et al (2010) Accuracy of CT-based measurements of glenoid version for total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elb Surg 19:166–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    van de Bunt F, Pearl ML, Lee EK et al (2015) Glenoid version by CT scan: an analysis of clinical measurement error and introduction of a protocol to reduce variability. Skeletal Radiol 44:1627–1635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    van de Bunt F, Pearl ML, Lee EK et al (2017) Analysis of normal and dysplastic glenohumeral morphology at magnetic resonance imaging in children with neonatal brachial plexus palsy. Pediatr Radiol 47:1337–1344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lowe JT, Testa EJ, Li X et al (2017) Magnetic resonance imaging is comparable to computed tomography for determination of glenoid version but does not accurately distinguish between Walch B2 and C classifications. J Shoulder Elb Surg 26:669–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Aygün Ü, Duran T, Oktay O et al (2017) Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography scans of the glenoid version in anterior dislocation of the shoulder. Orthopedics 40:e687–e692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shrout PE, Fleiss JL (1979) Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 86:420–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Revelle W (2015) Psych: procedures for psychological, psychometric, and personality research, 1.5.8 edn. Northwestern University, EvanstonGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cicchetti DV (1994) Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychol Assess 6:284–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ahn S, Park SH, Lee KH (2013) How to demonstrate similarity by using noninferiority and equivalence statistical testing in radiology research. Radiology 267:328–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Inui H, Sugamoto K, Miyamoto T et al (2001) Evaluation of three-dimensional glenoid structure using MRI. J Anat 199:323–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bryce CD, Pennypacker JL, Kulkarni N et al (2008) Validation of three-dimensional models of in situ scapulae. J Shoulder Elb Surg 17:825–832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lippert WC, Mehlman CT, Cornwall R et al (2012) The intrarater and interrater reliability of glenoid version and glenohumeral subluxation measurements in neonatal brachial plexus palsy. J Pediatr Orthop 32:378–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Stein J, Laor T, Carr P et al (2017) The effect of scapular position on magnetic resonance imaging measurements of glenohumeral dysplasia caused by neonatal brachial plexus palsy. J Hand Surg Am 42:1030.e1–1030.e11CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Pediatric RadiologyTexas Children’s HospitalHoustonUSA
  2. 2.Department of OrthopedicsTexas Children’s HospitalHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations