Comparative study of glenoid version and inclination using two-dimensional images from computed tomography and three-dimensional reconstructed bone models

• Published in: Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow Vol. 23; no. 3; pp. 119 - 124
• Main Authors: Choi, Chang-Hyuk, Kim, Hee-Chan, Kang, Daewon, Kim, Jun-Young
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Korea (South) 대한견주관절의학회 01.09.2020; Korean Shoulder and Elbow Society; 대한견주관절학회
• Subjects: 2d measurement; 3d measurement; glenoid inclination; glenoid version; Original; 정형외과학; Glenoid inclination; 2D measurement; 3D measurement; Glenoid version
• ISSN: 2383-8337; 2288-8721
• DOI: 10.5397/cise.2020.00220

This study was performed to compare glenoid version and inclination measured using two-dimensional (2D) images from computed tomography (CT) scans or three-dimensional (3D) reconstructed bone models. Thirty patients who had undergone conventional CT scans were included. Two orthopedic surgeons measured glenoid version and inclination three times on 2D images from CT scans (2D measurement), and two other orthopedic surgeons performed the same measurements using 3D reconstructed bone models (3D measurement). The 3D-reconstructed bone models were acquired and measured with Mimics and 3-Matics (Materialise). Mean glenoid version and inclination in 2D measurements were -1.705º and 9.08º, respectively, while those in 3D measurements were 2.635º and 7.23º. The intra-observer reliability in 2D measurements was 0.605 and 0.698, respectively, while that in 3D measurements was 0.883 and 0.892. The inter-observer reliability in 2D measurements was 0.456 and 0.374, respectively, while that in 3D measurements was 0.853 and 0.845. The difference between 2D and 3D measurements is not due to differences in image data but to the use of different tools. However, more consistent results were obtained in 3D measurement. Therefore, 3D measurement can be a good alternative for measuring glenoid version and inclination.