Geometric analysis of the humeral head and glenoid in the Indian population and its clinical significance

BACKGROUND: Total anatomic and reverse shoulder prostheses are designed to match the dimensions of the native bony anatomy. Chinese and Japanese bony dimensions of the shoulder have been found to be different from that of the Caucasian population. We hypothesized that the geometric dimensions of the humeral head and glenoid in the Indian population would also be different from that of the Caucasian population. METHOD: Fifty patients underwent computerized tomographic scans of their normal shoulders. We calculated the superoinferior (SI) diameter of the humeral head, anteroposterior diameter of the humeral head, radius of curvature of the humeral head, humeral head retroversion, humeral head thickness, inclination angle, critical shoulder angle, greater tuberosity angle, glenoid width, glenoid length, radius of curvature of the glenoid, glenoid inclination angle, and glenoid version. RESULTS: The radius of curvature of the humeral head averaged 22.9 ± 1.7 mm, the articular surface thickness 17.1 ± 1.6 mm, and the SI diameter 42.3 ± 3 mm. The SI diameter strongly correlated with the thickness (r = 0.617, P = .001). The anteroposterior/SI articular surface diameter ratio averaged 0.9 ± 0.9, the articular surface thickness/radius of curvature ratio 0.7 ± 0.9, the inclination angle 133.8 ± 6.4, and the retroversion angle 33.5° ± 8.5°. The radius of curvature of the glenoid averaged 23.3 ± 3.4 mm, the glenoid width 24.0 ± 2 mm, the SI length 31.3 ± 2.2 mm, the glenoid inclination angle 78.7° ± 4.8°, and the glenoid retroversion 1.8° ± 3.8°. DISCUSSION: Compared with the Western population, our cohort had a smaller humeral radius of curvature (P = .04), smaller articular surface diameter (P = .001), smaller inclination angle (P = .003), larger retroversion angle of the humeral head (P < .001), and smaller glenoid length and width (P < .0001). Most of the implant companies did not have smaller sized combinations of humeral heads with thickness to match our population. The glenoid width of females in our cohort was found to be smaller for the smallest size of the glenoid base plate. CONCLUSION: Smaller sized options in humeral head diameter and thickness of the anatomic prosthesis and glenoid baseplate of the reverse shoulder prosthesis need to be made available to suit our population and avoid a mismatch.