Cargando…

Is global humeral head offset related to intramedullary canal width? A computer tomography morphometric study

BACKGROUND: While most anatomic TSA stems allow some intra-operative adjustments, the default configuration assumes that head offset is directly proportional to stem diameter. Some authors reported that humeral head diameter is proportional to intra-medullary canal width and humeral head offset, but...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Barth, Johannes, Garret, Jérôme, Boutsiadis, Achilleas, Sautier, Etienne, Geais, Laurent, Bothorel, Hugo, Godenèche, Arnaud
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6135727/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30209642
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40634-018-0148-2
_version_ 1783354865051762688
author Barth, Johannes
Garret, Jérôme
Boutsiadis, Achilleas
Sautier, Etienne
Geais, Laurent
Bothorel, Hugo
Godenèche, Arnaud
author_facet Barth, Johannes
Garret, Jérôme
Boutsiadis, Achilleas
Sautier, Etienne
Geais, Laurent
Bothorel, Hugo
Godenèche, Arnaud
author_sort Barth, Johannes
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: While most anatomic TSA stems allow some intra-operative adjustments, the default configuration assumes that head offset is directly proportional to stem diameter. Some authors reported that humeral head diameter is proportional to intra-medullary canal width and humeral head offset, but none investigated the direct relationship between head offset and endosteal measurements. The purpose of the study was to determine whether global humeral head offset is proportional to intramedullary canal width at the distal metaphysis and proximal diaphysis. METHODS: We analyzed 100 Computed Tomography shoulder scans of patients aged 59.1 ± 20.5 with no signs of gleno-humeral arthritis nor humeral dysplasia. The width of the intramedullary diaphyseal canal was determined at four transverse sections 65, 70, 100 and 105 mm below the head center. The inter-observer agreement was excellent for intramedullary canal width (ICC = 0.96), head diameter (ICC = 0.97) and global head offset (ICC = 0.85). Correlations were analysed using Pearson’s coefficients and multivariable regressions were performed to determine associations between head offset and five independent variables (gender, age, intramedullary canal width, head diameter). RESULTS: Global head offset was negatively correlated with head diameter (r = − 0.31, p = 0.002), but not correlated with intramedullary canal width (r = − 0.11, p = 0.282). Multivariable regression confirmed that global head offset was independently associated with head diameter (beta = − 0.15, p = 0.005), but not with intramedullary canal width (beta = 0.06, p = 0.431). CONCLUSIONS: The present study revealed that humeral offset is not correlated with intramedullary canal width. Implant manufacturers and shoulder surgeons should be aware of the subtle morphologic features, to enhance humeral stem design and restore native anatomy.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6135727
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-61357272018-09-27 Is global humeral head offset related to intramedullary canal width? A computer tomography morphometric study Barth, Johannes Garret, Jérôme Boutsiadis, Achilleas Sautier, Etienne Geais, Laurent Bothorel, Hugo Godenèche, Arnaud J Exp Orthop Research BACKGROUND: While most anatomic TSA stems allow some intra-operative adjustments, the default configuration assumes that head offset is directly proportional to stem diameter. Some authors reported that humeral head diameter is proportional to intra-medullary canal width and humeral head offset, but none investigated the direct relationship between head offset and endosteal measurements. The purpose of the study was to determine whether global humeral head offset is proportional to intramedullary canal width at the distal metaphysis and proximal diaphysis. METHODS: We analyzed 100 Computed Tomography shoulder scans of patients aged 59.1 ± 20.5 with no signs of gleno-humeral arthritis nor humeral dysplasia. The width of the intramedullary diaphyseal canal was determined at four transverse sections 65, 70, 100 and 105 mm below the head center. The inter-observer agreement was excellent for intramedullary canal width (ICC = 0.96), head diameter (ICC = 0.97) and global head offset (ICC = 0.85). Correlations were analysed using Pearson’s coefficients and multivariable regressions were performed to determine associations between head offset and five independent variables (gender, age, intramedullary canal width, head diameter). RESULTS: Global head offset was negatively correlated with head diameter (r = − 0.31, p = 0.002), but not correlated with intramedullary canal width (r = − 0.11, p = 0.282). Multivariable regression confirmed that global head offset was independently associated with head diameter (beta = − 0.15, p = 0.005), but not with intramedullary canal width (beta = 0.06, p = 0.431). CONCLUSIONS: The present study revealed that humeral offset is not correlated with intramedullary canal width. Implant manufacturers and shoulder surgeons should be aware of the subtle morphologic features, to enhance humeral stem design and restore native anatomy. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2018-09-12 /pmc/articles/PMC6135727/ /pubmed/30209642 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40634-018-0148-2 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Research
Barth, Johannes
Garret, Jérôme
Boutsiadis, Achilleas
Sautier, Etienne
Geais, Laurent
Bothorel, Hugo
Godenèche, Arnaud
Is global humeral head offset related to intramedullary canal width? A computer tomography morphometric study
title Is global humeral head offset related to intramedullary canal width? A computer tomography morphometric study
title_full Is global humeral head offset related to intramedullary canal width? A computer tomography morphometric study
title_fullStr Is global humeral head offset related to intramedullary canal width? A computer tomography morphometric study
title_full_unstemmed Is global humeral head offset related to intramedullary canal width? A computer tomography morphometric study
title_short Is global humeral head offset related to intramedullary canal width? A computer tomography morphometric study
title_sort is global humeral head offset related to intramedullary canal width? a computer tomography morphometric study
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6135727/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30209642
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40634-018-0148-2
work_keys_str_mv AT barthjohannes isglobalhumeralheadoffsetrelatedtointramedullarycanalwidthacomputertomographymorphometricstudy
AT garretjerome isglobalhumeralheadoffsetrelatedtointramedullarycanalwidthacomputertomographymorphometricstudy
AT boutsiadisachilleas isglobalhumeralheadoffsetrelatedtointramedullarycanalwidthacomputertomographymorphometricstudy
AT sautieretienne isglobalhumeralheadoffsetrelatedtointramedullarycanalwidthacomputertomographymorphometricstudy
AT geaislaurent isglobalhumeralheadoffsetrelatedtointramedullarycanalwidthacomputertomographymorphometricstudy
AT bothorelhugo isglobalhumeralheadoffsetrelatedtointramedullarycanalwidthacomputertomographymorphometricstudy
AT isglobalhumeralheadoffsetrelatedtointramedullarycanalwidthacomputertomographymorphometricstudy
AT godenechearnaud isglobalhumeralheadoffsetrelatedtointramedullarycanalwidthacomputertomographymorphometricstudy