Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery · 2024
Are glenoid retroversion, humeral subluxation, and Walch classification associated with a muscle imbalance?
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Werthel Jean-David, Dufrenot Maryama, Schoch Bradley S, Walch Arnaud, Morvan Yannick, Urvoy Manuel, Walch Gilles, Gauci Marc-Olivier
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The etiology of humeral posterior subluxation remains unknown, and it has been hypothesized that horizontal muscle imbalance could cause this condition. The objective of this study was to compare the ratio of anterior-to-posterior rotator cuff and deltoid muscle volume as a function of humeral subluxation and glenoid morphology when analyzed as a continuous variable in arthritic shoulders.
METHODS: In total, 333 computed tomography scans of shoulders (273 arthritic shoulders and 60 healthy controls) were included in this study and were segmented automatically. For each muscle, the volume of muscle fibers without intramuscular fat was measured. The ratio between the volume of the subscapularis and the volume of the infraspinatus plus teres minor (AP ratio) and the ratio between the anterior and posterior deltoids (APdeltoid) were calculated. Statistical analyses were performed to determine whether a correlation could be found between these ratios and glenoid version, humeral subluxation, and/or glenoid type per the Walch classification.
RESULTS: Within the arthritic cohort, no statistically significant difference in the AP ratio was found between type A glenoids (1.09 ± 0.22) and type B glenoids (1.03 ± 0.16, P = .09), type D glenoids (1.12 ± 0.27, P = .77), or type C glenoids (1.10 ± 0.19, P > .999). No correlation was found between the AP ratio and glenoid version (ρ = -0.0360, P = .55) or humeral subluxation (ρ = 0.076, P = .21). The APdeltoid ratio of type A glenoids (0.48 ± 0.15) was significantly greater than that of type B glenoids (0.35 ± 0.16, P < .01) and type C glenoids (0.21 ± 0.10, P < .01) but was not significantly different from that of type D glenoids (0.64 ± 0.34, P > .999). When evaluating both healthy control and arthritic shoulders, moderate correlations were found between the APdeltoid ratio and both glenoid version (ρ = 0.55, P < .01) and humeral subluxation (ρ = -0.61, P < .01).
CONCLUSION: This in vitro study supports the use of software for fully automated 3-dimensional reconstruction of the 4 rotator cuff muscles and the deltoid. Compared with previous 2-dimensional computed tomography scan studies, our study did not find any correlation between the anteroposterior muscle volume ratio and glenoid parameters in arthritic shoulders. However, once deformity occurred, the observed APdeltoid ratio was lower with type B and C glenoids. These findings suggest that rotator cuff muscle imbalance may not be the precipitating etiology for the posterior humeral subluxation and secondary posterior glenoid erosion characteristic of Walch type B glenoids.
METHODS: In total, 333 computed tomography scans of shoulders (273 arthritic shoulders and 60 healthy controls) were included in this study and were segmented automatically. For each muscle, the volume of muscle fibers without intramuscular fat was measured. The ratio between the volume of the subscapularis and the volume of the infraspinatus plus teres minor (AP ratio) and the ratio between the anterior and posterior deltoids (APdeltoid) were calculated. Statistical analyses were performed to determine whether a correlation could be found between these ratios and glenoid version, humeral subluxation, and/or glenoid type per the Walch classification.
RESULTS: Within the arthritic cohort, no statistically significant difference in the AP ratio was found between type A glenoids (1.09 ± 0.22) and type B glenoids (1.03 ± 0.16, P = .09), type D glenoids (1.12 ± 0.27, P = .77), or type C glenoids (1.10 ± 0.19, P > .999). No correlation was found between the AP ratio and glenoid version (ρ = -0.0360, P = .55) or humeral subluxation (ρ = 0.076, P = .21). The APdeltoid ratio of type A glenoids (0.48 ± 0.15) was significantly greater than that of type B glenoids (0.35 ± 0.16, P < .01) and type C glenoids (0.21 ± 0.10, P < .01) but was not significantly different from that of type D glenoids (0.64 ± 0.34, P > .999). When evaluating both healthy control and arthritic shoulders, moderate correlations were found between the APdeltoid ratio and both glenoid version (ρ = 0.55, P < .01) and humeral subluxation (ρ = -0.61, P < .01).
CONCLUSION: This in vitro study supports the use of software for fully automated 3-dimensional reconstruction of the 4 rotator cuff muscles and the deltoid. Compared with previous 2-dimensional computed tomography scan studies, our study did not find any correlation between the anteroposterior muscle volume ratio and glenoid parameters in arthritic shoulders. However, once deformity occurred, the observed APdeltoid ratio was lower with type B and C glenoids. These findings suggest that rotator cuff muscle imbalance may not be the precipitating etiology for the posterior humeral subluxation and secondary posterior glenoid erosion characteristic of Walch type B glenoids.