Alexandre Almeida, Daniel C Agostini, Pietro Ft Nesello, Nayvaldo C de Almeida, Rafael Mioso, Ana Paula Agostini
{"title":"反底板定位的层析成像分析。","authors":"Alexandre Almeida, Daniel C Agostini, Pietro Ft Nesello, Nayvaldo C de Almeida, Rafael Mioso, Ana Paula Agostini","doi":"10.1177/2471549220987714","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To verify whether reverse baseplate positioning without the support of intraoperative three-dimensional technology is within the acceptable parameters in the literature and whether glenoid bone deformity (GBD) compromises this positioning.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Sixty-nine reverse shoulder arthroplasties were evaluated with volumetric computed tomography (CT). Two radiologists performed blinded CT scan analysis and evaluated baseplate position within 2mm of the inferior glenoid; the inclination and version of the baseplate in relation to the Friedman line; and upper and lower screw and baseplate metallic peg end point positionings. The patients were divided according to the presence of GBD for statistical analyses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The two radiologists concurred reasonably in their interpretations of the following analyzed parameters: baseplate position within 2mm of the inferior glenoid rim (97.1% and 95.7%), baseplate inclination (82.6% and 81.2%), baseplate version (69.6% and 56.5%), the upper screw reaching the base of the coracoid process (71% and 79.7%), the inferior screw remaining inside the scapula (88.4% and 84.1%), and the metallic peg of the baseplate considered intraosseous (88.4% and 72.5%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Reverse baseplate positioning without intraoperative three-dimensional technology is within the acceptable parameters of the literature, except for baseplate version and upper screw position. GBD did not interfere with baseplate positioning in reverse shoulder arthroplasty.</p>","PeriodicalId":73942,"journal":{"name":"Journal of shoulder and elbow arthroplasty","volume":" ","pages":"2471549220987714"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2471549220987714","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Tomographic Analysis of Positioning of Reverse Baseplates Positioning.\",\"authors\":\"Alexandre Almeida, Daniel C Agostini, Pietro Ft Nesello, Nayvaldo C de Almeida, Rafael Mioso, Ana Paula Agostini\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/2471549220987714\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To verify whether reverse baseplate positioning without the support of intraoperative three-dimensional technology is within the acceptable parameters in the literature and whether glenoid bone deformity (GBD) compromises this positioning.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Sixty-nine reverse shoulder arthroplasties were evaluated with volumetric computed tomography (CT). Two radiologists performed blinded CT scan analysis and evaluated baseplate position within 2mm of the inferior glenoid; the inclination and version of the baseplate in relation to the Friedman line; and upper and lower screw and baseplate metallic peg end point positionings. The patients were divided according to the presence of GBD for statistical analyses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The two radiologists concurred reasonably in their interpretations of the following analyzed parameters: baseplate position within 2mm of the inferior glenoid rim (97.1% and 95.7%), baseplate inclination (82.6% and 81.2%), baseplate version (69.6% and 56.5%), the upper screw reaching the base of the coracoid process (71% and 79.7%), the inferior screw remaining inside the scapula (88.4% and 84.1%), and the metallic peg of the baseplate considered intraosseous (88.4% and 72.5%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Reverse baseplate positioning without intraoperative three-dimensional technology is within the acceptable parameters of the literature, except for baseplate version and upper screw position. GBD did not interfere with baseplate positioning in reverse shoulder arthroplasty.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73942,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of shoulder and elbow arthroplasty\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"2471549220987714\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-02-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2471549220987714\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of shoulder and elbow arthroplasty\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/2471549220987714\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of shoulder and elbow arthroplasty","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2471549220987714","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Tomographic Analysis of Positioning of Reverse Baseplates Positioning.
Objective: To verify whether reverse baseplate positioning without the support of intraoperative three-dimensional technology is within the acceptable parameters in the literature and whether glenoid bone deformity (GBD) compromises this positioning.
Methods: Sixty-nine reverse shoulder arthroplasties were evaluated with volumetric computed tomography (CT). Two radiologists performed blinded CT scan analysis and evaluated baseplate position within 2mm of the inferior glenoid; the inclination and version of the baseplate in relation to the Friedman line; and upper and lower screw and baseplate metallic peg end point positionings. The patients were divided according to the presence of GBD for statistical analyses.
Results: The two radiologists concurred reasonably in their interpretations of the following analyzed parameters: baseplate position within 2mm of the inferior glenoid rim (97.1% and 95.7%), baseplate inclination (82.6% and 81.2%), baseplate version (69.6% and 56.5%), the upper screw reaching the base of the coracoid process (71% and 79.7%), the inferior screw remaining inside the scapula (88.4% and 84.1%), and the metallic peg of the baseplate considered intraosseous (88.4% and 72.5%).
Conclusion: Reverse baseplate positioning without intraoperative three-dimensional technology is within the acceptable parameters of the literature, except for baseplate version and upper screw position. GBD did not interfere with baseplate positioning in reverse shoulder arthroplasty.