Philipp Moroder, Sergii Poltaretskyi, Patric Raiss, Patrick J Denard, Brian C Werner, Brandon J Erickson, Justin W Griffin, Nick Metcalfe, Paul Siegert
{"title":"SECEC 2024 年格拉蒙奖:反向全肩关节置换术术前规划中运动范围模拟的姿势调整的关键作用。","authors":"Philipp Moroder, Sergii Poltaretskyi, Patric Raiss, Patrick J Denard, Brian C Werner, Brandon J Erickson, Justin W Griffin, Nick Metcalfe, Paul Siegert","doi":"10.1302/0301-620X.106B11.BJJ-2024-0110.R1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>The objective of this study was to compare simulated range of motion (ROM) for reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) with and without adjustment for scapulothoracic orientation in a global reference system. We hypothesized that values for simulated ROM in preoperative planning software with and without adjustment for scapulothoracic orientation would be significantly different.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A statistical shape model of the entire humerus and scapula was fitted into ten shoulder CT scans randomly selected from 162 patients who underwent rTSA. Six shoulder surgeons independently planned a rTSA in each model using prototype development software with the ability to adjust for scapulothoracic orientation, the starting position of the humerus, as well as kinematic planes in a global reference system simulating previously described posture types A, B, and C. ROM with and without posture adjustment was calculated and compared in all movement planes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All movement planes showed significant differences when comparing protocols with and without adjustment for posture. The largest mean difference was seen in external rotation, being 62° (SD 16°) without adjustment compared to 25° (SD 9°) with posture adjustment (p < 0.001), with the highest mean difference being 49° (SD 15°) in type C. Mean extension was 57° (SD 18°) without adjustment versus 24° (SD 11°) with adjustment (p < 0.001) and the highest mean difference of 47° (SD 18°) in type C. Mean abducted internal rotation was 69° (SD 11°) without adjustment versus 31° (SD 6°) with posture adjustment (p < 0.001), showing the highest mean difference of 51° (SD 11°) in type C.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The present study demonstrates that accounting for scapulothoracic orientation has a significant impact on simulated ROM for rTSA in all motion planes, specifically rendering vastly lower values for external rotation, extension, and high internal rotation. The substantial differences observed in this study warrant a critical re-evaluation of all previously published studies that examined component choice and placement for optimized ROM in rTSA using conventional preoperative planning software.</p>","PeriodicalId":48944,"journal":{"name":"Bone & Joint Journal","volume":"106-B 11","pages":"1284-1292"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"SECEC Grammont Award 2024: The critical role of posture adjustment for range of motion simulation in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty preoperative planning.\",\"authors\":\"Philipp Moroder, Sergii Poltaretskyi, Patric Raiss, Patrick J Denard, Brian C Werner, Brandon J Erickson, Justin W Griffin, Nick Metcalfe, Paul Siegert\",\"doi\":\"10.1302/0301-620X.106B11.BJJ-2024-0110.R1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>The objective of this study was to compare simulated range of motion (ROM) for reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) with and without adjustment for scapulothoracic orientation in a global reference system. We hypothesized that values for simulated ROM in preoperative planning software with and without adjustment for scapulothoracic orientation would be significantly different.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A statistical shape model of the entire humerus and scapula was fitted into ten shoulder CT scans randomly selected from 162 patients who underwent rTSA. Six shoulder surgeons independently planned a rTSA in each model using prototype development software with the ability to adjust for scapulothoracic orientation, the starting position of the humerus, as well as kinematic planes in a global reference system simulating previously described posture types A, B, and C. ROM with and without posture adjustment was calculated and compared in all movement planes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All movement planes showed significant differences when comparing protocols with and without adjustment for posture. The largest mean difference was seen in external rotation, being 62° (SD 16°) without adjustment compared to 25° (SD 9°) with posture adjustment (p < 0.001), with the highest mean difference being 49° (SD 15°) in type C. Mean extension was 57° (SD 18°) without adjustment versus 24° (SD 11°) with adjustment (p < 0.001) and the highest mean difference of 47° (SD 18°) in type C. Mean abducted internal rotation was 69° (SD 11°) without adjustment versus 31° (SD 6°) with posture adjustment (p < 0.001), showing the highest mean difference of 51° (SD 11°) in type C.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The present study demonstrates that accounting for scapulothoracic orientation has a significant impact on simulated ROM for rTSA in all motion planes, specifically rendering vastly lower values for external rotation, extension, and high internal rotation. The substantial differences observed in this study warrant a critical re-evaluation of all previously published studies that examined component choice and placement for optimized ROM in rTSA using conventional preoperative planning software.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48944,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bone & Joint Journal\",\"volume\":\"106-B 11\",\"pages\":\"1284-1292\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bone & Joint Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.106B11.BJJ-2024-0110.R1\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bone & Joint Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.106B11.BJJ-2024-0110.R1","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","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:本研究的目的是比较反向全肩关节置换术(rTSA)的模拟运动范围(ROM),在全局参考系统中对肩胛胸廓方向进行调整和不进行调整。我们假设,术前规划软件中的模拟 ROM 值在调整和不调整肩胛胸廓方向的情况下会有显著差异:从162名接受rTSA手术的患者中随机抽取了10张肩部CT扫描图像,将整个肱骨和肩胛骨的统计形状模型拟合到这些扫描图像中。六名肩部外科医生使用原型开发软件对每个模型进行了独立的 rTSA 计划,该软件能够调整肩胛胸椎方向、肱骨起始位置以及模拟之前描述的 A、B 和 C 型姿势的全局参考系统中的运动平面:结果:在比较进行和未进行姿势调整的方案时,所有运动平面均显示出显著差异。平均差异最大的是外旋运动,无调整时为 62° (SD 16°),而有姿势调整时为 25° (SD 9°)(P < 0.001),平均差异最大的是 C 型,为 49° (SD 15°)。内收内旋的平均值为 69°(SD 11°),未进行姿势调整时为 69°(SD 11°),进行姿势调整时为 31°(SD 6°)(P < 0.001),C 型的平均值差异最大,为 51°(SD 11°):本研究表明,考虑肩胛胸方位对所有运动平面的 rTSA 模拟 ROM 都有显著影响,特别是外旋、伸展和高度内旋的模拟 ROM 值大大降低。本研究中观察到的巨大差异表明,有必要对之前发表的所有研究进行重新评估,这些研究使用传统的术前规划软件,检查了在rTSA中优化ROM的部件选择和放置。
SECEC Grammont Award 2024: The critical role of posture adjustment for range of motion simulation in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty preoperative planning.
Aims: The objective of this study was to compare simulated range of motion (ROM) for reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) with and without adjustment for scapulothoracic orientation in a global reference system. We hypothesized that values for simulated ROM in preoperative planning software with and without adjustment for scapulothoracic orientation would be significantly different.
Methods: A statistical shape model of the entire humerus and scapula was fitted into ten shoulder CT scans randomly selected from 162 patients who underwent rTSA. Six shoulder surgeons independently planned a rTSA in each model using prototype development software with the ability to adjust for scapulothoracic orientation, the starting position of the humerus, as well as kinematic planes in a global reference system simulating previously described posture types A, B, and C. ROM with and without posture adjustment was calculated and compared in all movement planes.
Results: All movement planes showed significant differences when comparing protocols with and without adjustment for posture. The largest mean difference was seen in external rotation, being 62° (SD 16°) without adjustment compared to 25° (SD 9°) with posture adjustment (p < 0.001), with the highest mean difference being 49° (SD 15°) in type C. Mean extension was 57° (SD 18°) without adjustment versus 24° (SD 11°) with adjustment (p < 0.001) and the highest mean difference of 47° (SD 18°) in type C. Mean abducted internal rotation was 69° (SD 11°) without adjustment versus 31° (SD 6°) with posture adjustment (p < 0.001), showing the highest mean difference of 51° (SD 11°) in type C.
Conclusion: The present study demonstrates that accounting for scapulothoracic orientation has a significant impact on simulated ROM for rTSA in all motion planes, specifically rendering vastly lower values for external rotation, extension, and high internal rotation. The substantial differences observed in this study warrant a critical re-evaluation of all previously published studies that examined component choice and placement for optimized ROM in rTSA using conventional preoperative planning software.
期刊介绍:
We welcome original articles from any part of the world. The papers are assessed by members of the Editorial Board and our international panel of expert reviewers, then either accepted for publication or rejected by the Editor. We receive over 2000 submissions each year and accept about 250 for publication, many after revisions recommended by the reviewers, editors or statistical advisers. A decision usually takes between six and eight weeks. Each paper is assessed by two reviewers with a special interest in the subject covered by the paper, and also by members of the editorial team. Controversial papers will be discussed at a full meeting of the Editorial Board. Publication is between four and six months after acceptance.