Virtual reconstruction of glenoid bone defects using a statistical shape model.

BACKGROUND Description of the native shape of a glenoid helps surgeons to preoperatively plan the position of a shoulder implant. A statistical shape model (SSM) can be used to virtually reconstruct a glenoid bone defect and to predict the inclination, version, and center position of the native glenoid. An SSM-based reconstruction method has already been developed for acetabular bone reconstruction. The goal of this study was to evaluate the SSM-based method for the reconstruction of glenoid bone defects and the prediction of native anatomic parameters. METHODS First, an SSM was created on the basis of 66 healthy scapulae. Then, artificial bone defects were created in all scapulae and reconstructed using the SSM-based reconstruction method. For each bone defect, the reconstructed surface was compared with the original surface. Furthermore, the inclination, version, and glenoid center point of the reconstructed surface were compared with the original parameters of each scapula. RESULTS For small glenoid bone defects, the healthy surface of the glenoid was reconstructed with a root mean square error of 1.2 ± 0.4 mm. Inclination, version, and glenoid center point were predicted with an accuracy of 2.4° ± 2.1°, 2.9° ± 2.2°, and 1.8 ± 0.8 mm, respectively. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION The SSM-based reconstruction method is able to accurately reconstruct the native glenoid surface and to predict the native anatomic parameters. Based on this outcome, statistical shape modeling can be considered a successful technique for use in the preoperative planning of shoulder arthroplasty.

[1]  Jos Vander Sloten,et al.  Virtual anatomical reconstruction of large acetabular bone defects using a statistical shape model , 2017, Computer methods in biomechanics and biomedical engineering.

[2]  J. Bryan,et al.  The three-dimensional glenoid vault model can estimate normal glenoid version in osteoarthritis. , 2008, Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery.

[3]  J. Iannotti,et al.  Predicting normal glenoid version from the pathologic scapula: a comparison of 4 methods in 2- and 3-dimensional models. , 2011, Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery.

[4]  Joseph P. Iannotti,et al.  Three-dimensional imaging and templating improve glenoid implant positioning. , 2015, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[5]  D. D’Lima,et al.  Optimizing glenoid component position using three-dimensional computed tomography reconstruction. , 2008, Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery.

[6]  F A Matsen,et al.  Total shoulder arthroplasty. , 1987, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[7]  G. Banfi,et al.  Optimal glenoid component inclination in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. How to improve implant stability , 2014, MUSCULOSKELETAL SURGERY.

[8]  J. Gower Generalized procrustes analysis , 1975 .

[9]  J. Bryan,et al.  Comparison of patient-specific instruments with standard surgical instruments in determining glenoid component position: a randomized prospective clinical trial. , 2012, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[10]  Jos Vander Sloten,et al.  CT-based virtual shape reconstruction for severe glenoid bone defects , 2011 .

[11]  E. Audenaert,et al.  About the variability of the shape of the glenoid cavity , 2004, Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy.

[12]  Jos Vander Sloten,et al.  CT-based computerized planning method for shape reconstruction of severe glenoid defects , 2012 .

[13]  Jonathan C. Levy,et al.  Accuracy of patient-specific guided glenoid baseplate positioning for reverse shoulder arthroplasty. , 2014, Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery.

[14]  J. T. Bryant,et al.  Factors affecting the stability of reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a biomechanical study. , 2013, Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery.

[15]  E. Craig,et al.  Cuff-tear arthropathy. , 1983, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[16]  J Vander Sloten,et al.  Computer-aided planning of reconstructive surgery of the innominate bone: Automated correction proposals , 2007, Computer aided surgery : official journal of the International Society for Computer Aided Surgery.

[17]  Jonathan C. Levy,et al.  Center of Rotation Affects Abduction Range of Motion of Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty , 2007, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[18]  Kimerly A Powell,et al.  Use of three-dimensional computed tomography for the analysis of the glenoid anatomy. , 2005, Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery.

[19]  Jonathan C. Levy,et al.  Glenoid morphology in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: classification and surgical implications. , 2009, Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery.

[20]  R. M. Greiwe,et al.  Rotator Cuff Deficient Arthritis of the Glenohumeral Joint , 2010, Clinics in orthopedic surgery.

[21]  I. Jonkers,et al.  A patient-specific guide for optimizing custom-made glenoid implantation in cases of severe glenoid defects: an in vitro study. , 2016, Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery.

[22]  W. Wallace,et al.  A new classification of glenoid bone loss to help plan the implantation of a glenoid component before revision arthroplasty of the shoulder. , 2016, The bone & joint journal.

[23]  J. Iannotti,et al.  Functional outcome after shoulder arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis: a multicenter study. , 2002, Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery.

[24]  K. Yamanaka,et al.  A Radiographic Classification of Massive Rotator Cuff Tear Arthritis , 2011, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.