Cargando…
Comparative study of glenoid version and inclination using two-dimensional images from computed tomography and three-dimensional reconstructed bone models
BACKGROUND: This study was performed to compare glenoid version and inclination measured using two-dimensional (2D) images from computed tomography (CT) scans or three-dimensional (3D) reconstructed bone models. METHODS: Thirty patients who had undergone conventional CT scans were included. Two orth...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Korean Shoulder and Elbow Society
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7714290/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33330245 http://dx.doi.org/10.5397/cise.2020.00220 |
_version_ | 1783618723457794048 |
---|---|
author | Choi, Chang-Hyuk Kim, Hee-Chan Kang, Daewon Kim, Jun-Young |
author_facet | Choi, Chang-Hyuk Kim, Hee-Chan Kang, Daewon Kim, Jun-Young |
author_sort | Choi, Chang-Hyuk |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: This study was performed to compare glenoid version and inclination measured using two-dimensional (2D) images from computed tomography (CT) scans or three-dimensional (3D) reconstructed bone models. METHODS: Thirty patients who had undergone conventional CT scans were included. Two orthopedic surgeons measured glenoid version and inclination three times on 2D images from CT scans (2D measurement), and two other orthopedic surgeons performed the same measurements using 3D reconstructed bone models (3D measurement). The 3D-reconstructed bone models were acquired and measured with Mimics and 3-Matics (Materialise). RESULTS: Mean glenoid version and inclination in 2D measurements were –1.705º and 9.08º, respectively, while those in 3D measurements were 2.635º and 7.23º. The intra-observer reliability in 2D measurements was 0.605 and 0.698, respectively, while that in 3D measurements was 0.883 and 0.892. The inter-observer reliability in 2D measurements was 0.456 and 0.374, respectively, while that in 3D measurements was 0.853 and 0.845. CONCLUSIONS: The difference between 2D and 3D measurements is not due to differences in image data but to the use of different tools. However, more consistent results were obtained in 3D measurement. Therefore, 3D measurement can be a good alternative for measuring glenoid version and inclination. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7714290 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Korean Shoulder and Elbow Society |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-77142902020-12-15 Comparative study of glenoid version and inclination using two-dimensional images from computed tomography and three-dimensional reconstructed bone models Choi, Chang-Hyuk Kim, Hee-Chan Kang, Daewon Kim, Jun-Young Clin Shoulder Elb Original Article BACKGROUND: This study was performed to compare glenoid version and inclination measured using two-dimensional (2D) images from computed tomography (CT) scans or three-dimensional (3D) reconstructed bone models. METHODS: Thirty patients who had undergone conventional CT scans were included. Two orthopedic surgeons measured glenoid version and inclination three times on 2D images from CT scans (2D measurement), and two other orthopedic surgeons performed the same measurements using 3D reconstructed bone models (3D measurement). The 3D-reconstructed bone models were acquired and measured with Mimics and 3-Matics (Materialise). RESULTS: Mean glenoid version and inclination in 2D measurements were –1.705º and 9.08º, respectively, while those in 3D measurements were 2.635º and 7.23º. The intra-observer reliability in 2D measurements was 0.605 and 0.698, respectively, while that in 3D measurements was 0.883 and 0.892. The inter-observer reliability in 2D measurements was 0.456 and 0.374, respectively, while that in 3D measurements was 0.853 and 0.845. CONCLUSIONS: The difference between 2D and 3D measurements is not due to differences in image data but to the use of different tools. However, more consistent results were obtained in 3D measurement. Therefore, 3D measurement can be a good alternative for measuring glenoid version and inclination. Korean Shoulder and Elbow Society 2020-09-01 /pmc/articles/PMC7714290/ /pubmed/33330245 http://dx.doi.org/10.5397/cise.2020.00220 Text en Copyright © 2020 Korean Shoulder and Elbow Society This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Choi, Chang-Hyuk Kim, Hee-Chan Kang, Daewon Kim, Jun-Young Comparative study of glenoid version and inclination using two-dimensional images from computed tomography and three-dimensional reconstructed bone models |
title | Comparative study of glenoid version and inclination using two-dimensional images from computed tomography and three-dimensional reconstructed bone models |
title_full | Comparative study of glenoid version and inclination using two-dimensional images from computed tomography and three-dimensional reconstructed bone models |
title_fullStr | Comparative study of glenoid version and inclination using two-dimensional images from computed tomography and three-dimensional reconstructed bone models |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparative study of glenoid version and inclination using two-dimensional images from computed tomography and three-dimensional reconstructed bone models |
title_short | Comparative study of glenoid version and inclination using two-dimensional images from computed tomography and three-dimensional reconstructed bone models |
title_sort | comparative study of glenoid version and inclination using two-dimensional images from computed tomography and three-dimensional reconstructed bone models |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7714290/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33330245 http://dx.doi.org/10.5397/cise.2020.00220 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT choichanghyuk comparativestudyofglenoidversionandinclinationusingtwodimensionalimagesfromcomputedtomographyandthreedimensionalreconstructedbonemodels AT kimheechan comparativestudyofglenoidversionandinclinationusingtwodimensionalimagesfromcomputedtomographyandthreedimensionalreconstructedbonemodels AT kangdaewon comparativestudyofglenoidversionandinclinationusingtwodimensionalimagesfromcomputedtomographyandthreedimensionalreconstructedbonemodels AT kimjunyoung comparativestudyofglenoidversionandinclinationusingtwodimensionalimagesfromcomputedtomographyandthreedimensionalreconstructedbonemodels |