肩关节置换术中盂成形测量的不一致性:系统回顾

IF 2.9 2区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Pub Date : 2024-10-08 DOI:10.1016/j.jse.2024.08.020
Nathan H Varady, Joshua T Bram, Jarred Chow, Samuel A Taylor, Joshua S Dines, Michael C Fu, Gabriella E Ode, David M Dines, Lawrence V Gulotta, Christopher M Brusalis
{"title":"肩关节置换术中盂成形测量的不一致性:系统回顾","authors":"Nathan H Varady, Joshua T Bram, Jarred Chow, Samuel A Taylor, Joshua S Dines, Michael C Fu, Gabriella E Ode, David M Dines, Lawrence V Gulotta, Christopher M Brusalis","doi":"10.1016/j.jse.2024.08.020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Glenoid version is a critical anatomic parameter relied upon by many surgeons to inform preoperative planning for shoulder arthroplasty. Advancements in imaging technology have prompted measurements of glenoid version on various imaging modalities with different techniques. However, discrepancies in how glenoid version is measured within the literature have not been well characterized.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A literature search was performed by querying PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane computerized databases from their inception through December 2023 to identify studies that assessed the relationship between preoperative glenoid version and at least one clinical or radiologic outcome following shoulder arthroplasty. Study quality was assessed via the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies criteria. Imaging modalities and techniques for measuring glenoid version, along with their association with clinical outcomes, were aggregated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 61 studies encompassing 17,070 shoulder arthroplasties, 27 studies (44.3%) described explicitly how glenoid version was measured. The most common imaging modality to assess preoperative glenoid version was computed tomography (CT) (63.9%), followed by radiography (23%); 11.5% of studies used a combination of imaging modalities within their study cohort. Among the studies using CT, 56.5% utilized two-dimensional (2D) CT, 41.3% utilized three-dimensional (3D) CT, and 2.2% used a combination of 2D and 3D CT. The use of 3D CT increased from 12.5% of studies in 2012-2014 to 25% of studies in 2018-2020 to 52% of studies in 2021-2023 (p<sub>trend</sub>=0.02). Forty-three (70.5%) studies measured postoperative version, most commonly on axillary radiograph (22 [51.2%]); 34.9% of these studies used different imaging modalities to assess pre- and postoperative version.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This systematic review revealed marked discrepancies in how glenoid version was measured and reported in studies pertaining to shoulder arthroplasty. A temporal trend of increased utilization of 3D CT scans and commercial preoperative planning software was identified. Improved standardization of the imaging modality and technique for measuring glenoid version will enable more rigorous evaluation of its impact on clinical outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":50051,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Inconsistencies in Measuring Glenoid Version in Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Nathan H Varady, Joshua T Bram, Jarred Chow, Samuel A Taylor, Joshua S Dines, Michael C Fu, Gabriella E Ode, David M Dines, Lawrence V Gulotta, Christopher M Brusalis\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jse.2024.08.020\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Glenoid version is a critical anatomic parameter relied upon by many surgeons to inform preoperative planning for shoulder arthroplasty. Advancements in imaging technology have prompted measurements of glenoid version on various imaging modalities with different techniques. However, discrepancies in how glenoid version is measured within the literature have not been well characterized.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A literature search was performed by querying PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane computerized databases from their inception through December 2023 to identify studies that assessed the relationship between preoperative glenoid version and at least one clinical or radiologic outcome following shoulder arthroplasty. Study quality was assessed via the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies criteria. Imaging modalities and techniques for measuring glenoid version, along with their association with clinical outcomes, were aggregated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 61 studies encompassing 17,070 shoulder arthroplasties, 27 studies (44.3%) described explicitly how glenoid version was measured. The most common imaging modality to assess preoperative glenoid version was computed tomography (CT) (63.9%), followed by radiography (23%); 11.5% of studies used a combination of imaging modalities within their study cohort. Among the studies using CT, 56.5% utilized two-dimensional (2D) CT, 41.3% utilized three-dimensional (3D) CT, and 2.2% used a combination of 2D and 3D CT. The use of 3D CT increased from 12.5% of studies in 2012-2014 to 25% of studies in 2018-2020 to 52% of studies in 2021-2023 (p<sub>trend</sub>=0.02). Forty-three (70.5%) studies measured postoperative version, most commonly on axillary radiograph (22 [51.2%]); 34.9% of these studies used different imaging modalities to assess pre- and postoperative version.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This systematic review revealed marked discrepancies in how glenoid version was measured and reported in studies pertaining to shoulder arthroplasty. A temporal trend of increased utilization of 3D CT scans and commercial preoperative planning software was identified. Improved standardization of the imaging modality and technique for measuring glenoid version will enable more rigorous evaluation of its impact on clinical outcomes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50051,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2024.08.020\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"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":"Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2024.08.020","RegionNum":2,"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

背景:盂成形度是许多外科医生赖以制定肩关节置换术术前计划的关键解剖参数。成像技术的进步促使人们使用不同的成像模式和不同的技术来测量盂成形度。然而,文献中对盂成形度测量方法的差异尚未得到很好的描述:方法:通过查询PubMed、EMBASE、CINAHL和Cochrane计算机数据库从开始到2023年12月的文献,以确定评估肩关节置换术后术前盂成形度与至少一种临床或放射学结果之间关系的研究。研究质量根据非随机研究方法指数标准进行评估。对测量盂成形度的成像方式和技术及其与临床结果的关系进行了汇总:结果:在61项涉及17,070例肩关节置换术的研究中,有27项研究(44.3%)明确描述了如何测量盂成形度。评估术前盂成形度最常见的成像模式是计算机断层扫描(CT)(63.9%),其次是放射摄影(23%);11.5%的研究在其研究队列中使用了多种成像模式。在使用 CT 的研究中,56.5% 使用了二维 (2D) CT,41.3% 使用了三维 (3D) CT,2.2% 结合使用了二维和三维 CT。使用三维 CT 的研究从 2012-2014 年的 12.5% 增加到 2018-2020 年的 25%,再到 2021-2023 年的 52%(ptrend=0.02)。43项(70.5%)研究测量了术后版本,最常见的是腋窝X线片(22项[51.2%]);其中34.9%的研究使用不同的成像模式来评估术前和术后版本:本系统回顾揭示了肩关节置换术相关研究在测量和报告盂成形度方面存在明显差异。三维 CT 扫描和商用术前规划软件的使用率呈上升趋势。提高盂成形度测量成像方式和技术的标准化程度将有助于更严格地评估盂成形度对临床结果的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Inconsistencies in Measuring Glenoid Version in Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review.

Background: Glenoid version is a critical anatomic parameter relied upon by many surgeons to inform preoperative planning for shoulder arthroplasty. Advancements in imaging technology have prompted measurements of glenoid version on various imaging modalities with different techniques. However, discrepancies in how glenoid version is measured within the literature have not been well characterized.

Methods: A literature search was performed by querying PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane computerized databases from their inception through December 2023 to identify studies that assessed the relationship between preoperative glenoid version and at least one clinical or radiologic outcome following shoulder arthroplasty. Study quality was assessed via the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies criteria. Imaging modalities and techniques for measuring glenoid version, along with their association with clinical outcomes, were aggregated.

Results: Among 61 studies encompassing 17,070 shoulder arthroplasties, 27 studies (44.3%) described explicitly how glenoid version was measured. The most common imaging modality to assess preoperative glenoid version was computed tomography (CT) (63.9%), followed by radiography (23%); 11.5% of studies used a combination of imaging modalities within their study cohort. Among the studies using CT, 56.5% utilized two-dimensional (2D) CT, 41.3% utilized three-dimensional (3D) CT, and 2.2% used a combination of 2D and 3D CT. The use of 3D CT increased from 12.5% of studies in 2012-2014 to 25% of studies in 2018-2020 to 52% of studies in 2021-2023 (ptrend=0.02). Forty-three (70.5%) studies measured postoperative version, most commonly on axillary radiograph (22 [51.2%]); 34.9% of these studies used different imaging modalities to assess pre- and postoperative version.

Conclusions: This systematic review revealed marked discrepancies in how glenoid version was measured and reported in studies pertaining to shoulder arthroplasty. A temporal trend of increased utilization of 3D CT scans and commercial preoperative planning software was identified. Improved standardization of the imaging modality and technique for measuring glenoid version will enable more rigorous evaluation of its impact on clinical outcomes.

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
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
23.30%
发文量
604
审稿时长
11.2 weeks
期刊介绍: The official publication for eight leading specialty organizations, this authoritative journal is the only publication to focus exclusively on medical, surgical, and physical techniques for treating injury/disease of the upper extremity, including the shoulder girdle, arm, and elbow. Clinically oriented and peer-reviewed, the Journal provides an international forum for the exchange of information on new techniques, instruments, and materials. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery features vivid photos, professional illustrations, and explicit diagrams that demonstrate surgical approaches and depict implant devices. Topics covered include fractures, dislocations, diseases and injuries of the rotator cuff, imaging techniques, arthritis, arthroscopy, arthroplasty, and rehabilitation.
期刊最新文献
After primary shoulder arthroplasty appropriate vancomycin antibiotic prophylaxis does not lead to increased infectious complications when compared to cefazolin. Lateralization of the humerus in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: can preoperative planning software predict postoperative lateralization and does lateralization influence outcomes? Pathological formation of subcoracoid bursa effusion on magnetic resonance imaging studies. Pain Relief Survivorship: A Comparison of Exactech Equinoxe Anatomic and Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty for Primary Osteoarthritis. Tyrolean Iceman's arrow injury to the shoulder: New insights into extent and survival time.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1