Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Statistical Shape Modeling Approach to Predict Missing Scapular Bone

Annals of Biomedical Engineering volume 48, pages 367–379 (2020)Cite this article

Abstract

Prediction of complete and premorbid scapular anatomy is an important aspect of successful shoulder arthroplasty surgeries to treat glenohumeral arthritis and which remains elusive in the current literature. We proposed to build a statistical shape model (SSM) of the scapula and use it to build a framework to predict a complete scapular shape from virtually created scapular bone defects. The bone defects were synthetically created to imitate bone loss in the glenoid region and missing bony part in inferior and superior scapular regions. Sixty seven dry scapulae were used to build the SSM while ten external scapular shapes (not used in SSM building) were selected to map scapular shape variability using its anatomical classification. For each external scapula, four virtual bone defects were created in the superior, inferior and glenoid regions by manually removing a part of the original mesh. Using these defective shapes as prior knowledge, original shapes were reconstructed using scapula SSM and Gaussian process regression. Robustness of the scapula SSM was excellent (generality = 0.79 mm, specificity = 1.74 mm, first 15 principal modes of variations accounted for 95% variability). The validity and quality of the reconstruction of complete scapular bone were evaluated using two methods (1) mesh distances in terms of mean and RMS values and (2) four anatomical measures (three angles: glenoid version, glenoid inclination, and critical shoulder angle, and glenoid center location). The prediction error in the angle measures ranged from 1.0° to 2.2°. For mesh distances, highest mean and RMS error was 0.97 mm and 1.30 respectively. DICE similarity coefficient between the original and predicted shapes was excellent (≥ 0.81). This framework provided high reconstruction accuracy and can be effectively embedded in the pre-surgical planning of shoulder arthroplasty or in morphology-based shoulder biomechanics modeling pipelines.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

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

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6

References

  1. Abler, D., S. Berger, A. Terrier, F. Becce, A. Farron, and P. Buchler. A statistical shape model to predict the premorbid glenoid cavity. J. Shoulder Elbow Surg. 27:1800–1808, 2018.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Al Najjar, M., S. S. Mehta, and P. Monga. Three dimensional scapular prints for evaluating glenoid morphology: an exploratory study. J. Clin. Orthop. Trauma 9:230–235, 2018.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Albrecht, T., M. Luthi, T. Gerig, and T. Vetter. Posterior shape models. Med. Image Anal. 17:959–973, 2013.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bahl, J. S., J. Zhang, B. A. Killen, M. Taylor, L. B. Solomon, J. B. Arnold, D. G. Lloyd, T. F. Besier, and D. Thewlis. Statistical shape modelling versus linear scaling: effects on predictions of hip joint centre location and muscle moment arms in people with hip osteoarthritis. J. Biomech. 85:164–172, 2019.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Besl, P. J., and N. D. McKay. A method for registration of 3-D shapes. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 14:239–256, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Boileau, P., D. J. Watkinson, A. M. Hatzidakis, and F. Balg. Grammont reverse prosthesis: design, rationale, and biomechanics. J. Shoulder Elbow Surg. 14:147S–161S, 2005.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Borotikar, B., T. Mutsvangwa, V. Burdin, E. Ghorbel, M. Lempereur, S. Brochard, E. Stindel, and C. Roux. Augmented statistical shape modeling for orthopaedic surgery and rehabilitation. In: Medical image analysis and informatics: computer-aided diagnosis and therapy, edited by P. M. D. Azevedo-Marques, A. Mencattini, M. Salmeri, and R. M. Rangayyan. Florida: CRC Press, 2017, pp. 369–426.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Brownlee, S., K. Chalkidou, J. Doust, A. G. Elshaug, P. Glasziou, I. Heath, S. Nagpal, V. Saini, D. Srivastava, K. Chalmers, and D. Korenstein. Evidence for overuse of medical services around the world. Lancet 390:156–168, 2017.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Burton, II, W. S., I. Sintini, J. M. Chavarria, J. R. Brownhill, and P. J. Laz. Assessment of scapular morphology and bone quality with statistical models. Comput. Methods Biomech. Biomed. Eng. 22:341–351, 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cherchi, L., J. F. Ciornohac, J. Godet, P. Clavert, and J. F. Kempf. Critical shoulder angle: measurement reproducibility and correlation with rotator cuff tendon tears. Orthop. Traumatol. Surg. Res. 102:559–562, 2016.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Cignoni, P., M. Callieri, M. Corsini, M. Dellepiane, F. Ganovelli, and G. Ranzuglia. MeshLab: an Open-Source Mesh Processing Tool. In: Eurographics Italian Chapter Conference. Italy, 2008.

  12. Daggett, M., B. Werner, P. Collin, M. O. Gauci, J. Chaoui, and G. Walch. Correlation between glenoid inclination and critical shoulder angle: a radiographic and computed tomography study. J. Shoulder Elbow Surg. 24:1948–1953, 2015.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Dice, L. R. Measures of the amount of ecologic association between species. Ecology 26:297–302, 1945.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Dubuisson, M., and A. K. Jain. A modified Hausdorff distance for object matching. In: Proceedings of 12th International Conference on Pattern Recognition, 1994, vol. 561, pp. 566–568.

  15. Dwight, T. The range of variation of the human shoulder-blade. Am. Nat. 21:627–638, 1887.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Edwards, T. B. CORR Insights (R): is premorbid glenoid anatomy altered in patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis? Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 471:2940–2941, 2013.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Eraly, K., P. Debeer, I. Jonkers, and J. Vander Sloten. CT-based computerized planning method for shape reconstruction of severe glenoid defects. In: EFORT. Berlin, Germany, 2012.

  18. Favard, L., J. Berhouet, G. Walch, J. Chaoui, and C. Levigne. Superior glenoid inclination and glenoid bone loss: definition, assessment, biomechanical consequences, and surgical options. Orthopade 46:1015–1021, 2017.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Frankle, M., S. Siegal, D. Pupello, A. Saleem, M. Mighell, and M. Vasey. The reverse shoulder prosthesis for glenohumeral arthritis associated with severe rotator cuff deficiency. A minimum two-year follow-up study of sixty patients. J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 87:1697–1705, 2005.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Ganapathi, A., J. A. McCarron, X. Chen, and J. P. Iannotti. Predicting normal glenoid version from the pathologic scapula: a comparison of 4 methods in 2- and 3-dimensional models. J. Shoulder Elbow Surg. 20:234–244, 2011.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Garcia, G. H., J. N. Liu, D. M. Dines, and J. S. Dines. Effect of bone loss in anterior shoulder instability. World J. Orthop. 6:421–433, 2015.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Gelaude, F., T. Clijmans, P. L. Broos, B. Lauwers, and J. Vander Sloten. Computer-aided planning of reconstructive surgery of the innominate bone: automated correction proposals. Comput. Aided Surg. 12:286–294, 2007.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Gumina, S., K. I. Bohsali, and M. A. Wirth. Surgical technique for cuff tear arthropathy. In: Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty, edited by S. Gumina, F. A. Grassi, and P. Paladini. Switzerland: Springer, 2019, pp. 211–234.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Gupta, A., C. Thussbas, M. Koch, and L. Seebauer. Management of glenoid bone defects with reverse shoulder arthroplasty-surgical technique and clinical outcomes. J. Shoulder Elbow Surg. 27:853–862, 2018.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Hill, J. M., and T. R. Norris. Long-term results of total shoulder arthroplasty following bone-grafting of the glenoid. J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 83:877–883, 2001.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Hovelius, L., A. Olofsson, B. Sandstrom, B. G. Augustini, L. Krantz, H. Fredin, B. Tillander, U. Skoglund, B. Salomonsson, J. Nowak, and U. Sennerby. Nonoperative treatment of primary anterior shoulder dislocation in patients forty years of age and younger. A prospective twenty-five-year follow-up. J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 90:945–952, 2008.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Jacq, J. J., C. Schwartz, V. Burdin, R. Gerard, C. Lefevre, C. Roux, and O. Remy-Neris. Building and tracking root shapes. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 57:696–707, 2010.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Jolliffe, I. Principal Component Analysis. New York: Wiley, 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Kandemir, U., R. B. Allaire, J. T. Jolly, R. E. Debski, and P. J. McMahon. The relationship between the orientation of the glenoid and tears of the rotator cuff. J. Bone Joint Surg. Br. 88:1105–1109, 2006.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Klein, S. M., P. Dunning, P. Mulieri, D. Pupello, K. Downes, and M. A. Frankle. Effects of acquired glenoid bone defects on surgical technique and clinical outcomes in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 92:1144–1154, 2010.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Kocsis, G., D. S. Thyagarajan, K. J. Fairbairn, and W. A. Wallace. A new classification of glenoid bone loss to help plan the implantation of a glenoid component before revision arthroplasty of the shoulder. Bone Joint J. 98:374–380, 2016.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Kontaxis, A., and G. R. Johnson. The biomechanics of reverse anatomy shoulder replacement—a modelling study. Clin. Biomech. 24:254–260, 2009.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Letta, C., A. Schweizer, and P. Furnstahl. Quantification of contralateral differences of the scaphoid: a comparison of bone geometry in three dimensions. Anat. Res. Int. 2014:904275, 2014.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Lüthi, M. SCALable image analysis and shape modelling, 2014.

  35. Luthi, M., T. Gerig, C. Jud, and T. Vetter. Gaussian process morphable models. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 40:1860–1873, 2018.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Malhas, A., A. Rashid, D. Copas, S. Bale, and I. Trail. Glenoid bone loss in primary and revision shoulder arthroplasty. Shoulder Elbow 8:229–240, 2016.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Mayya, M., S. Poltaretskyi, C. Hamitouche, and J. Chaoui. Scapula Statistical Shape Model construction based on watershed segmentation and elastic registration. In: 2013 IEEE 10th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging, 2013, pp. 101–104.

  38. Mayya, M., S. Poltaretskyi, C. Hamitouche, and J. Chaoui. Mesh correspondence improvement using Regional Affine Registration: application to statistical shape model of the scapula. IRBM 36:220–232, 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Mazaheri, P., L. M. Fayad, E. K. Fishman, and S. Demehri. Advanced imaging of the scapula: what every radiologist needs to know. J. Comput. Assist. Tomogr. 40:567–575, 2016.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Merrill, A., K. Guzman, and S. L. Miller. Gender differences in glenoid anatomy: an anatomic study. Surg. Radiol. Anat. 31:183–189, 2009.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Moor, B. K., S. Bouaicha, D. A. Rothenfluh, A. Sukthankar, and C. Gerber. Is there an association between the individual anatomy of the scapula and the development of rotator cuff tears or osteoarthritis of the glenohumeral joint? A radiological study of the critical shoulder angle. Bone Joint J. 95:935–941, 2013.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Mori, D., J. A. Abboud, S. Namdari, and G. R. Williams. Glenoid bone loss in anatomic shoulder arthroplasty: literature review and surgical technique. Orthop. Clin. N. Am. 46:389–397, 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Mutsvangwa, T., V. Burdin, C. Schwartz, and C. Roux. An automated statistical shape model developmental pipeline: application to the human scapula and humerus. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 62:1098–1107, 2015.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Myronenko, A., and X. Song. Point set registration: coherent point drift. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 32:2262–2275, 2010.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Neer, II, C. S. The classic: articular replacement for the humeral head. 1955. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 469:2409–2421, 2011.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Neer, II, C. S., K. C. Watson, and F. J. Stanton. Recent experience in total shoulder replacement. J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 64:319–337, 1982.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Norris, T. R., and J. P. Iannotti. Functional outcome after shoulder arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis: a multicenter study. J. Shoulder Elbow Surg. 11:130–135, 2002.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Nyffeler, R. W., and D. C. Meyer. Acromion and glenoid shape: why are they important predictive factors for the future of our shoulders? EFORT Open Rev. 2:141–150, 2017.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Nyffeler, R. W., R. Sheikh, T. S. Atkinson, H. A. Jacob, P. Favre, and C. Gerber. Effects of glenoid component version on humeral head displacement and joint reaction forces: an experimental study. J. Shoulder Elbow Surg. 15:625–629, 2006.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Phipatanakul, W. P., and T. R. Norris. Treatment of glenoid loosening and bone loss due to osteolysis with glenoid bone grafting. J. Shoulder Elbow Surg. 15:84–87, 2006.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Plessers, K., P. Vanden Berghe, C. Van Dijck, R. Wirix-Speetjens, P. Debeer, I. Jonkers, and J. Vander Sloten. Virtual reconstruction of glenoid bone defects using a statistical shape model. J. Shoulder Elbow Surg. 27:160–166, 2018.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Rahmi, H., and A. Jawa. Management of complications after revision shoulder arthroplasty. Curr. Rev. Musculoskelet. Med. 8:98–106, 2015.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Ricchetti, E. T., M. D. Hendel, D. N. Collins, and J. P. Iannotti. Is premorbid glenoid anatomy altered in patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis? Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 471:2932–2939, 2013.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Rouleau, D. M., J. F. Kidder, J. Pons-Villanueva, S. Dynamidis, M. Defranco, and G. Walch. Glenoid version: how to measure it? Validity of different methods in two-dimensional computed tomography scans. J. Shoulder Elbow Surg. 19:1230–1237, 2010.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Salhi, A., V. Burdin, T. Mutsvangwa, S. Sivarasu, S. Brochard, and B. Borotikar. Subject-specific shoulder muscle attachment region prediction using statistical shape models: a validity study. Conf. Proc. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Soc. 1640–1643:2017, 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Scalise, J. J., M. J. Codsi, J. Bryan, and J. P. Iannotti. The three-dimensional glenoid vault model can estimate normal glenoid version in osteoarthritis. J. Shoulder Elbow Surg. 17:487–491, 2008.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Seidl, A. J., G. R. Williams, and P. Boileau. Challenges in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: addressing glenoid bone loss. Orthopedics 39:14–23, 2016.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Singh, J. A., J. W. Sperling, and R. H. Cofield. Revision surgery following total shoulder arthroplasty: analysis of 2588 shoulders over three decades (1976 to 2008). J. Bone Joint Surg. Br. 93:1513–1517, 2011.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Suwarganda, E. K., L. E. Diamond, D. G. Lloyd, T. F. Besier, J. Zhang, B. A. Killen, T. N. Savage, and D. J. Saxby. Minimal medical imaging can accurately reconstruct geometric bone models for musculoskeletal models. PLoS ONE 14:e0205628, 2019.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Terrier, A., J. Ston, X. Larrea, and A. Farron. Measurements of three-dimensional glenoid erosion when planning the prosthetic replacement of osteoarthritic shoulders. Bone Joint J. 96:513–518, 2014.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Vlachopoulos, L., M. Luthi, F. Carrillo, C. Gerber, G. Szekely, and P. Furnstahl. Restoration of the patient-specific anatomy of the proximal and distal parts of the humerus: statistical shape modeling versus contralateral registration method. J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 100:e50, 2018.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Walch, G., R. Badet, A. Boulahia, and A. Khoury. Morphologic study of the glenoid in primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis. J. Arthroplasty 14:756–760, 1999.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Walch, G., T. B. Edwards, A. Boulahia, P. Boileau, D. Mole, and P. Adeleine. The influence of glenohumeral prosthetic mismatch on glenoid radiolucent lines: results of a multicenter study. J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 84:2186–2191, 2002.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Weishaupt, D., M. Zanetti, R. W. Nyffeler, C. Gerber, and J. Hodler. Posterior glenoid rim deficiency in recurrent (atraumatic) posterior shoulder instability. Skeletal Radiol. 29:204–210, 2000.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Yang, Y. M., D. Rueckert, and A. M. Bull. Predicting the shapes of bones at a joint: application to the shoulder. Comput. Methods Biomech. Biomed. Eng. 11:19–30, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the Department of Anatomy at the Faculty of Medicine, CHRU Brest, for making the dry bones available and also the Department of Radiology for scanning the bones. This work was supported by the French State, managed by the National Research Agency with Reference ANR-17-RHUS-0005 and by funding from Institut Carnot and region of Brittany funds.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratory for Medical Information Processing (LaTIM), INSERM, UMR1101, 22, Ave. Camille Desmoulins, C.S. 93837, 29238, Brest Cedex - 3, France

    Asma Salhi, Valerie Burdin, Arnaud Boutillon, Sylvain Brochard & Bhushan Borotikar

  2. Department of Image and Information Treatment, IMT Atlantique, Brest, France

    Asma Salhi, Valerie Burdin & Arnaud Boutillon

  3. CHRU de Brest, Hôpital Morvan, Brest, France

    Sylvain Brochard & Bhushan Borotikar

  4. Université de Bretagne Occidentale (UBO), Brest, France

    Sylvain Brochard & Bhushan Borotikar

  5. Division of Biomedical Engineering, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa

    Tinashe Mutsvangwa

Authors
  1. Asma Salhi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Valerie Burdin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Arnaud Boutillon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sylvain Brochard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tinashe Mutsvangwa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Bhushan Borotikar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bhushan Borotikar.

Additional information

Associate Editor Peter E. McHugh oversaw the review of this article.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 882 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Salhi, A., Burdin, V., Boutillon, A. et al. Statistical Shape Modeling Approach to Predict Missing Scapular Bone. Ann Biomed Eng 48, 367–379 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-019-02354-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-019-02354-6

Keywords

search

Navigation