Accuracy and reliability of postoperative radiographic measurements of glenoid anatomy and relationships in patients with total shoulder arthroplasty

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Standardized preoperative and postoperative radiographs included AP and axillary lateral views [17][18][19]48]. Adequate observation of the spinoglenoid notch confirmed proper orientation of the axillary view [19,29].…”

Section: Study Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does Postoperative Glenoid Retroversion Affect the 2-Year Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes for Total Shoulder Arthroplasty?

Service

Hsu

Somerson

et al. 2017

“…The consistency of the results of the two independent observers may be attributable in large part to standardization of the axillary radiographs. Part of the standardization of the imaging technique is that the arm of the supine patient is held elevated in the plane of the scapula, a position of function not possible with CT imaging and a position not consistent in prior reports using the axillary view [22]. The high degree of interobserver consistency in our values for the point of glenohumeral contact may be related to the fact that the arm position was standardized and that this measurement is simpler than trying to relate an estimated humeral head center to scapular landmarks [27].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Axillary View: Arthritic Glenohumeral Anatomy and Changes After Ream and Run

Matsen

Gupta

2014

“…Radiographic evaluation was performed immediately before surgery and at followup using standardized axillary views [16,26]. Patients unable to return to our center for followup were sent instructions specifying how the views were to be obtained, emphasizing the position of the arm in elevation in the plane of the scapula and the need to see the spinoglenoid notch and enough of the body of the scapula for measurement of glenoid version.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can the Ream and Run Procedure Improve Glenohumeral Relationships and Function for Shoulders With the Arthritic Triad?

Matsen

Warme

Jackins

2015

Background The arthritic triad of glenoid biconcavity, glenoid retroversion, and posterior displacement of the humeral head on the glenoid is associated with an increased risk of failure of total shoulder joint replacement. Although a number of glenohumeral arthroplasty techniques are being used to manage this complex pathology, problems with glenoid component failure remain. In that the ream and run procedure manages arthritic pathoanatomy without a glenoid component, we sought evidence that this procedure can be effective in improving the centering of the humeral head contact on the glenoid and in improving the comfort and function of shoulders with the arthritic triad without the risk of glenoid component failure.Questions/purposes We asked, for shoulders with the arthritic triad, whether the ream and run procedure could improve glenohumeral relationships as measured on standardized axillary radiographs and patient-reported shoulder comfort and function as recorded by the Simple Shoulder Test. Methods Between January 1, 2006 and December 14, 2011, we performed 531 primary anatomic glenohumeral arthroplasties for arthritis, of which 221 (42%) were ream and run procedures. Of these, 30 shoulders in 30 patients had the ream and run procedure for the arthritic triad and had two years of clinical and radiographic follow-up. These 30 shoulders formed the basis for this case series. The average age of the patients was 56 ± 8 years; all but one were male. Two of the 30 patients requested revision to total shoulder arthroplasty within the first year after their ream and run procedure because of their dissatisfaction with their rehabilitation progress. For the 28 shoulders not having had a revision, we determined on the standardized axillary views before and after surgery the glenoid type, glenoid version (90°minus the angle between the plane of the glenoid face and the plane of the body of the scapula), and location of the humeral contact point with respect to the anteroposterio dimension of the glenoid (the ratio of the distance from the anterior glenoid lip to the contact point divided by the distance between the anterior and posterior glenoid lips). We also recorded the patient's self-assessed shoulder comfort and function before and after surgery using the 12 questions of the Simple Shoulder Test. Results For the 28 unrevised shoulders the mean followup was 3.0 years (range, 2-9.2 years). In these patients, the ream and run procedure resulted in improved centering of the humeral head on the face of the glenoid (preoperative: 75% ± 7% posterior; postoperative: 59% ± 10% posterior; mean difference 16% [95% CI, 13%-19%]; p \ 0.001), notably this improved centering was achieved