Bone Retroversion

Abstract: Background While glenoid retroversion and posterior humeral head decentering are common preoperative features of severely arthritic glenohumeral joints, the relationship of postoperative glenoid component retroversion to the clinical results of total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) is unclear. Studies have indicated concern for inferior outcomes when glenoid components are inserted in 15° or more retroversion.

Abstract: Background Salter innominate osteotomy has been identified as an effective additional surgery for the dysplastic hip. However, because in this procedure, the distal segment of the pelvis is displaced laterally and anteriorly, it may predispose the patient to acetabular retroversion. The degree to which this may be the case, however, remains incompletely characterized.

Abstract: BACKGROUND Humeral retroversion is variable among individuals, and there are several measurement methods This study was conducted to compare the concordance and reliability between the standard method and 5 other measurement methods on two-dimensional (2D) computed tomography (CT) scans METHODS CT scans from 21 patients who underwent shoulder arthroplasty (19 women and 2 men; mean age, 701 years [range, 42 to 81 years]) were analyzed The elbow transepicondylar axis was used as a distal reference Proximal reference points included the central humeral head axis (standard method), the axis of the humeral center to 9 mm posterior to the posterior margin of the bicipital groove (method 1), the central axis of the bicipital groove -30° (method 2), the base axis of the triangular shaped metaphysis +25° (method 3), the distal humeral head central axis +24° (method 4), and contralateral humeral head retroversion (method 5) Measurements were conducted independently by two orthopedic surgeons RESULTS The mean humeral retroversion was 3142° ± 1210° using the standard method, and 2970° ± 1166° (method 1), 3064° ± 1124° (method 2), 3041° ± 1117° (method 3), 3214° ± 1170° (method 4), and 3415° ± 1147° (method 5) for the other methods Interobserver reliability and intraobserver reliability exceeded 075 for all methods On the test to evaluate the equality of the standard method to the other methods, the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) of method 2 and method 4 were different from the ICC of the standard method in surgeon A (p < 005), and the ICCs of method 2 and method 3 were different form the ICC of the standard method in surgeon B (p < 005) CONCLUSIONS Humeral version measurement using the posterior margin of the bicipital groove (method 1) would be most concordant with the standard method even though all 5 methods showed excellent agreements