Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Three-dimensional analysis of the proximal humeral and glenoid geometry using MicroScribe 3D digitizer

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Cone R, Danzig L, Resnick D, Goldman A (1983) The bicipital groove: radiographic, anatomic, and pathologic study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 141:781–788

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. George D, Mallery P (2003) SPSS for Windows step by step: a simple guide and reference, 4th edn. Allyn & Bacon, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  10. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hitchcock H, Bechtol C (1948) Painful shoulder. J Bone Joint Surg Am 30:263–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 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

    Google Scholar 

  16. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Moore K, Dalley A, Agur A (2006) Clinically oriented anatomy. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 671–709

    Google Scholar 

  18. 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

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Rajput H, Vyas K, Shroff B (2012) A study of morphological patterns of glenoid cavity of scapula. Natl J Med Res 2:504–507

    Google Scholar 

  20. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Vettivel S, Indrasingh I, Chandi G, Chandi S (1992) Variations in the intertubercular sulcus of the humerus related to handedness. J Anat 180:321

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

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

  1. Centre for Anatomy and Human Identification (CAHID), School of Science and Engineering, University of Dundee, Dundee, DD1 5EH, United Kingdom

    Wejdan H. Owaydhah, Mohammad A. Alobaidy, Abdulrahman S. Alraddadi & Roger W. Soames

  2. Department of Anatomy, Taibah University, Medina, Saudi Arabia

    Wejdan H. Owaydhah

  3. Department of Anatomy, Faculty of Applied Medical Science, Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah, Saudi Arabia

    Mohammad A. Alobaidy

  4. King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Science, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

    Abdulrahman S. Alraddadi

Authors
  1. Wejdan H. Owaydhah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mohammad A. Alobaidy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Abdulrahman S. Alraddadi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Roger W. Soames
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohammad A. Alobaidy.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00276-016-1782-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation