Walch B2 glenoids: 2-dimensional vs 3-dimensional comparison of humeral head subluxation and glenoid retroversion

Abstract

Background: The posterior subluxation and glenoid version in Walch B2 glenoids are routinely assessed by 2-dimensional (2D) computed tomography (CT). Different methods of calculation are used to analyze these parameters. Alternatively, the rising use of 3-dimensional (3D) planification tools in arthroplasty requires the clarification if the 3D measurements are equivalent to 2D. The aim of this study was to compare B2 glenoids characteristics between 2D CT assessment method and 3D automated software method. Methods: CT scans from patients who underwent a shoulder arthroplasty were identified. In the 2D method, measurement of glenoid version was determined. Measurement of the humeral head subluxation (HHS) (scapula axis method) was determined by the percentage of the humeral head posterior to the Friedman line (scapula axis). Three-dimensional analysis allowed an automated segmentation of the humerus and scapula, definition of scapular planes, and determination of glenoid version and HHS. Results: Fifty-one CT scans met inclusion criteria. The intraobserver and interobserver reliability of the 2D retroversion (RV) and 2D HHS intraclass correlation coefficient was excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient>0.9).The median RV was 16° [12-20] in 2D and 19° [16-23] in 3D (P < .0001). The median subluxation was 71% [66-75] in 2D and 81% [78-86] in 3D (P < .0001). Linear regression analysis demonstrated low positive correlation between RV and subluxation in 2D and 3D (R2 = 0.31 and R2 = 0.23, respectively). Discussion/Conclusion: The assessment of version and HHS in Walch B2 glenoids between 2D CT and a 3D planification were significantly different. Low correlation between RV and HHS was observed (2D and 3D assessment).

Keywords

• Shoulder arthritis
• B2 glenoid
• Humeral subluxation
• Retroversion
• 2D vs 3D
• Planification software