不同植入系统的反向全肩关节置换衬垫的约束程度差异很大。

IF 2.8 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS
Philipp Moroder, Eva Herbst, Jonas Pawelke, Sebastian Lappen, Eva Schulz
{"title":"不同植入系统的反向全肩关节置换衬垫的约束程度差异很大。","authors":"Philipp Moroder, Eva Herbst, Jonas Pawelke, Sebastian Lappen, Eva Schulz","doi":"10.1302/2633-1462.510.BJO-2024-0100.R1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>The liner design is a key determinant of the constraint of a reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA). The aim of this study was to compare the degree of constraint of rTSA liners between different implant systems.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An implant company's independent 3D shoulder arthroplasty planning software (mediCAD 3D shoulder v. 7.0, module v. 2.1.84.173.43) was used to determine the jump height of standard and constrained liners of different sizes (radius of curvature) of all available companies. The obtained parameters were used to calculate the stability ratio (degree of constraint) and angle of coverage (degree of glenosphere coverage by liner) of the different systems. Measurements were independently performed by two raters, and intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated to perform a reliability analysis. Additionally, measurements were compared with parameters provided by the companies themselves, when available, to ensure validity of the software-derived measurements.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were variations in jump height between rTSA systems at a given size, resulting in large differences in stability ratio between systems. Standard liners exhibited a stability ratio range from 126% to 214% (mean 158% (SD 23%)) and constrained liners a range from 151% to 479% (mean 245% (SD 76%)). The angle of coverage showed a range from 103° to 130° (mean 115° (SD 7°)) for standard and a range from 113° to 156° (mean 133° (SD 11°)) for constrained liners. Four arthroplasty systems kept the stability ratio of standard liners constant (within 5%) across different sizes, while one system showed slight inconsistencies (within 10%), and ten arthroplasty systems showed large inconsistencies (range 11% to 28%). The stability ratio of constrained liners was consistent across different sizes in two arthroplasty systems and inconsistent in seven systems (range 18% to 106%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Large differences in jump height and resulting degree of constraint of rTSA liners were observed between different implant systems, and in many cases even within the same implant systems. While the immediate clinical effect remains unclear, in theory the degree of constraint of the liner plays an important role for the dislocation and notching risk of a rTSA system.</p>","PeriodicalId":34103,"journal":{"name":"Bone & Joint Open","volume":"5 10","pages":"818-824"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11444795/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Large variability in degree of constraint of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty liners between different implant systems.\",\"authors\":\"Philipp Moroder, Eva Herbst, Jonas Pawelke, Sebastian Lappen, Eva Schulz\",\"doi\":\"10.1302/2633-1462.510.BJO-2024-0100.R1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>The liner design is a key determinant of the constraint of a reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA). The aim of this study was to compare the degree of constraint of rTSA liners between different implant systems.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An implant company's independent 3D shoulder arthroplasty planning software (mediCAD 3D shoulder v. 7.0, module v. 2.1.84.173.43) was used to determine the jump height of standard and constrained liners of different sizes (radius of curvature) of all available companies. The obtained parameters were used to calculate the stability ratio (degree of constraint) and angle of coverage (degree of glenosphere coverage by liner) of the different systems. Measurements were independently performed by two raters, and intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated to perform a reliability analysis. Additionally, measurements were compared with parameters provided by the companies themselves, when available, to ensure validity of the software-derived measurements.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were variations in jump height between rTSA systems at a given size, resulting in large differences in stability ratio between systems. Standard liners exhibited a stability ratio range from 126% to 214% (mean 158% (SD 23%)) and constrained liners a range from 151% to 479% (mean 245% (SD 76%)). The angle of coverage showed a range from 103° to 130° (mean 115° (SD 7°)) for standard and a range from 113° to 156° (mean 133° (SD 11°)) for constrained liners. Four arthroplasty systems kept the stability ratio of standard liners constant (within 5%) across different sizes, while one system showed slight inconsistencies (within 10%), and ten arthroplasty systems showed large inconsistencies (range 11% to 28%). The stability ratio of constrained liners was consistent across different sizes in two arthroplasty systems and inconsistent in seven systems (range 18% to 106%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Large differences in jump height and resulting degree of constraint of rTSA liners were observed between different implant systems, and in many cases even within the same implant systems. While the immediate clinical effect remains unclear, in theory the degree of constraint of the liner plays an important role for the dislocation and notching risk of a rTSA system.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":34103,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bone & Joint Open\",\"volume\":\"5 10\",\"pages\":\"818-824\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11444795/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bone & Joint Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1302/2633-1462.510.BJO-2024-0100.R1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bone & Joint Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1302/2633-1462.510.BJO-2024-0100.R1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:衬垫设计是决定反向全肩关节成形术(rTSA)约束性的关键因素。本研究旨在比较不同植入系统的反向全肩关节置换衬垫的约束程度:方法:使用一家植入公司的独立 3D 肩关节规划软件(mediCAD 3D shoulder v. 7.0,模块 v.2.1.84.173.43),确定所有可用公司不同尺寸(曲率半径)的标准内衬和约束内衬的跳跃高度。所获得的参数用于计算不同系统的稳定比(约束程度)和覆盖角(衬垫对玻璃层的覆盖程度)。测量由两名评分员独立进行,并计算类内相关系数,以进行可靠性分析。此外,还将测量结果与公司自己提供的参数(如有)进行了比较,以确保软件测量结果的有效性:在给定尺寸下,不同 rTSA 系统之间的跳跃高度存在差异,导致不同系统之间的稳定比差异很大。标准衬垫的稳定比范围从 126% 到 214%(平均 158%(标准偏差 23%)),约束衬垫的稳定比范围从 151% 到 479%(平均 245%(标准偏差 76%))。标准内衬的覆盖角度从103°到130°不等(平均115° (SD 7°)),约束内衬的覆盖角度从113°到156°不等(平均133° (SD 11°))。四种关节成形术系统在不同尺寸中保持标准衬垫的稳定比不变(5%以内),一种系统出现轻微不一致(10%以内),十种关节成形术系统出现较大不一致(范围在11%到28%之间)。在两个关节成形系统中,不同尺寸的约束衬垫的稳定性比率是一致的,而在七个系统中则不一致(范围在 18% 到 106% 之间):结论:在不同的植入系统中,甚至在同一植入系统中,rTSA衬垫的跳跃高度和由此产生的约束程度都存在很大差异。虽然直接的临床效果尚不明确,但从理论上讲,衬垫的约束程度对 rTSA 系统的脱位和缺口风险起着重要作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Large variability in degree of constraint of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty liners between different implant systems.

Aims: The liner design is a key determinant of the constraint of a reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA). The aim of this study was to compare the degree of constraint of rTSA liners between different implant systems.

Methods: An implant company's independent 3D shoulder arthroplasty planning software (mediCAD 3D shoulder v. 7.0, module v. 2.1.84.173.43) was used to determine the jump height of standard and constrained liners of different sizes (radius of curvature) of all available companies. The obtained parameters were used to calculate the stability ratio (degree of constraint) and angle of coverage (degree of glenosphere coverage by liner) of the different systems. Measurements were independently performed by two raters, and intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated to perform a reliability analysis. Additionally, measurements were compared with parameters provided by the companies themselves, when available, to ensure validity of the software-derived measurements.

Results: There were variations in jump height between rTSA systems at a given size, resulting in large differences in stability ratio between systems. Standard liners exhibited a stability ratio range from 126% to 214% (mean 158% (SD 23%)) and constrained liners a range from 151% to 479% (mean 245% (SD 76%)). The angle of coverage showed a range from 103° to 130° (mean 115° (SD 7°)) for standard and a range from 113° to 156° (mean 133° (SD 11°)) for constrained liners. Four arthroplasty systems kept the stability ratio of standard liners constant (within 5%) across different sizes, while one system showed slight inconsistencies (within 10%), and ten arthroplasty systems showed large inconsistencies (range 11% to 28%). The stability ratio of constrained liners was consistent across different sizes in two arthroplasty systems and inconsistent in seven systems (range 18% to 106%).

Conclusion: Large differences in jump height and resulting degree of constraint of rTSA liners were observed between different implant systems, and in many cases even within the same implant systems. While the immediate clinical effect remains unclear, in theory the degree of constraint of the liner plays an important role for the dislocation and notching risk of a rTSA system.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Bone & Joint Open
Bone & Joint Open ORTHOPEDICS-
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信