SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Annals of Medical Research / 2019 / Cilt: 26 - Sayı: 10

Sex and side differences of three-dimensional Glenoid anthropometric parameters in a normal Turkish population

Turgut Tursem TOKMAK
Turan Bilge KIZKAPAN
Abdulhamit MISIR
Mustafa ÖZÇAMDALI
Erdal UZUN
Pages
2164–2171
Publication Date
2022-10-12
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The height corresponding to a 25-mm glenoid width was predicted.Results: There was a significant difference between male and female subjects regarding glenoid height, width, version, depth,circumference, surface area, and patient height (p

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: Due to anatomical differences, current baseplate designs may lead to incompatibilities in reverse shoulder arthroplasty indifferent populations.
📊
Key Findings & Data:We hypothesized that glenoid anthropometric parameters in Turkish subjects would be different from that inother populations.Materials and Methods: Three-dimensional morphology of 200 healthy Turkish shoulders (100 male and 100 females, 93 left and 107right shoulders) was evaluated.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The height corresponding to a 25-mm glenoid width was predicted.Results: There was a significant difference between male and female subjects regarding glenoid height, width, version, depth,circumference, surface area, and patient height (p
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Aim: Due to anatomical differences, current baseplate designs may lead to incompatibilities in reverse shoulder arthroplasty indifferent populations. We hypothesized that glenoid anthropometric parameters in Turkish subjects would be different from that inother populations.Materials and Methods: Three-dimensional morphology of 200 healthy Turkish shoulders (100 male and 100 females, 93 left and 107right shoulders) was evaluated. Glenoid height, width, version, inclination, circumference, and surface area; glenoid depth, scapularneck length, and scapular neck angle were measured. Sex and side differences were assessed. The correlation between glenoidmorphologic parameters and subject height was assessed. The height corresponding to a 25-mm glenoid width was predicted.Results: There was a significant difference between male and female subjects regarding glenoid height, width, version, depth,circumference, surface area, and patient height (p

🔖

Cite This Article

TOKMAK, T. T., KIZKAPAN, T. B., MISIR, A., ÖZÇAMDALI, M., UZUN, E. (2022). Sex and side differences of three-dimensional Glenoid anthropometric parameters in a normal Turkish population. Annals of Medical Research, Cilt: 26 - Sayı: 10, 2164–2171. https://ajindex.com/articles/447396

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Cheung YLA, Lie WHC, Chow HL, et al. Are the current size options of glenoid baseplates for reverse shoulder arthroplasty sufficient for our local population? J Orthop Traum Rehabil 2016;21:30-4
  2. Henninger HB, King FK, Tashjian RZ, et al. Biomechanical comparison of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty systems in soft tissue-constrained shoulders. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2014;23:108-17
  3. Nyffeler RW, Werner CML, Gerber C. Biomechanical relevance of glenoid component positioning in the reverse Delta III total shoulder prosthesis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2005;14:524-8
  4. Frankle MA, Teramoto A, Luo ZP, et al. Glenoid morphology in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: Classification and surgical implications. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2009;18:874-85
  5. Yang Y, Zuo J, Liu T, et al. Glenoid morphology and the safe zone for protecting the suprascapular nerve during baseplate fixation in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Int Orthop 2018;42:587-93
  6. Mizuno N, Nonaka S, Ozaki R, et al. Three-dimensional assessment of the normal Japanese glenoid and comparison with the normal French glenoid. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2017;103:1271-5
  7. Smith T, Bäunker A, Krämer M, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of inferior scapula notching of reverse shoulder arthroplasty depending on implant configuration and scapula neck anatomy.Int J Shoulder Surg 2015;9:103-9
  8. Boileau P, Watkinson DJ, Hatzidakis AM, et al. Grammont reverse prosthesis: Design, rationale, and biomechanics. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2005;14:147- 61
  9. Simovitch RW, Zumstein MA, Lohri E, et al. Predictors of scapular notching in patients managed with the delta III reverse total shoulder replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007;89:588-600
  10. Shimozono Y, Arai R, Matsuda S. The dimensions of the scapula glenoid in japanese rotator cuff tear patients. Clin Orthop Surg 2017;9:207-12
  11. Ji JH, Jeong JY, Song HS, et al. Early clinical results of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in the Korean population. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2013;22:1102-107
  12. Chae SW, Kim SY, Lee H, et al. Effect of baseplate size on primary glenoid stability and impingement-free range of motion in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2014;15:417
  13. Harman M, Frankle M, Vasey M, et al. Initial glenoid component fixation in “reverse” total shoulder arthroplasty: a biomechanical evaluation. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2005;14:162-7
  14. Donohue KW, Ricchetti ET, Iannotti JP. Surgical management of the biconcave (B2) glenoid. Curr Rev Mu