Commercial 3-dimensional imaging programs are not created equal: version and inclination measurement positions vary among preoperative planning software

BACKGROUND: Variability exists between total shoulder arthroplasty preoperative planning software (PPS) systems for glenoid angular measurements. The purpose of this study is to locate the region on the glenoid at which inclination and version are measured on the PPS modalities of Blueprint and VIP. METHODS: Preoperative computed tomography scans of 30 consecutive patients undergoing primary arthroplasty were analyzed using two PPS systems (VIP and Blueprint) to independently obtain glenoid version and inclination measurements through their respective protocols. Three-dimensional equivalent images were independently analyzed utilizing open-source OsiriX DICOM software by two board-certified orthopedic sports medicine surgeons measuring glenoid version and inclination along ten equal intervals of the glenoid from superior to inferior and anterior to posterior. Manual version and inclination measurements were compared to both the VIP and the Blueprint measurements, and variances were analyzed by calculating root mean square error (RMSE). The closest interval (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) to the VIP and Blueprint measurement was identified for both version and inclination to determine the region of the glenoid both software programs obtained their measurements. RESULTS: Mean glenoid retroversion manually measured using OsiriX was 13.5° compared with 15.1° recorded by Blueprint (P = .516) and 12.2° by VIP (P = .621). Mean inclination using OsiriX was 5.5°, compared with 7.1° (P = .314) and 9.0° (P = .024) recorded by Blueprint and VIP, respectively. RMSE for version between Osirix and VIP was 4.65°, for Osirix and Blueprint was 4.44°, and for VIP and Blueprint was 4.45°. RMSE for inclination between Osirix and VIP was 6.43°, for Osirix and Blueprint was 5.25°, and for VIP and Blueprint was 5.13°. For version, VIP measurements most frequently aligned with the inferior quadrant of the glenoid (n = 13) with a median interval of 7, while Blueprint aligned with the superior quadrant of the glenoid (n = 13) with a median interval of 4. Inclination measurements aligned with the posterior quadrant of the glenoid for both VIP (n = 19) and Blueprint (n = 15) with a median interval of 8. CONCLUSION: PPS systems for shoulder arthroplasty vary in the region of the glenoid for which version and inclination are measured, which may affect the absolute values generated. Location of version measurement was different among the two commercial software programs, with VIP corresponding closest to the most inferior region of the glenoid, while Blueprint to the most superior one. Further research should assist in determining the version and inclination variations among commercial planning software.