No Access

INVESTIGATING THE INTRA-ANCESTRAL MORPHOMETRIC VARIATIONS OF THE THREE-DIMENSIONAL GEOMETRY OF THE PROXIMAL HUMERUS

Orthopaedic Biomechanics Lab, Division of Biomedical Engineering, Department of Human Biology, University of Cape Town, South Africa

Search for more papers by this author

Steve Roche

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Cape Town, South Africa

Search for more papers by this author

Theo Rosch

Jakaranda Hospital, Pretoria, South Africa

Search for more papers by this author

, and

Sudesh Sivarasu

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0812-568X

Orthopaedic Biomechanics Lab, Division of Biomedical Engineering, Department of Human Biology, University of Cape Town, South Africa

E-mail Address: Sudesh.Sivarasu@uct.ac.za

Correspondence to: Sudesh Sivarasu, Department of Human Biology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, South Africa, Private Bag X3, Observatory 7925, Cape Town, South Africa.

Search for more papers by this author

https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218957718500124Cited by:1 (Source: Crossref)

Abstract

Purpose: The knowledge of the normal geometrical characteristics of the proximal humerus is crucial to the success of its arthroplasty. This important information, is however, limited for the South African population. Therefore, this study investigates the three-dimensional morphometric parameters, specifically examining the intra-ancestral differences within the South African population. Methods: With the aid of geometry extraction techniques, various morphometric characteristics were measured on South African cadaveric humeri originating from three ethnicities including whites, blacks, and mixed in the ratio 1:2:4. Results: There is a significant mean difference in humeral head diameter between blacks and whites and between mixed and whites with a mean difference of $-$ 4.86, 95% CI ( $- 9.40$ , $- 0.32$ ) and $- 4.50$ , 95% CI ( $- 8.56$ , $- 0.44$ ), respectively. Similarly, for articular surface diameter, a significant mean difference of $- 4.58$ , 95% CI ( $- 9.10$ , $- 0.0646$ ) and $- 4.32$ , 95% CI ( $- 8.36$ , $- 0.2854$ ) were recorded between blacks and whites and between mixed and whites, respectively. Conclusion: The outcome of our study showed that the shape of the South African proximal humerus varies distinctively within the different ethnicities that were measured. The findings from this study may provide the data required to design and develop a new shoulder implant appropriate for South African patients.

Keywords:

References

1. Akman SD, Karakas P, Bozkir MG . The morphometric measurements of humerus segments. Turk J Med Sci 36 :81–85, 2005. Google Scholar
2. Ballmer FT, Sidles JA, Lippitt SB, Matsen FA . Humeral prosthetic arthroplasty: Surgically relevant considerations. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2 :296–304, 1993. Crossref, Google Scholar
3. Bicknell RT, DeLude JA, Kedgley AE, Ferreira LM, Dunning CE, King GJ et al. Early experience with computer-assisted shoulder hemiarthroplasty for fractures of the proximal humerus: Development of a novel technique and an in vitro comparison with traditional methods. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 16 :S117–S125, 2007. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
4. Boileau P, Walch G . The three-dimensional geometry of the proximal humerus. Implications for surgical technique and prosthetic design. J Bone Jt Surg Br 79 :857–865, 1997. Crossref, Google Scholar
5. Cabezas AF, Krebes K, Hussey MM, Santoni BG, Kim HS, Frankle MA, Oh JH . Morphologic variability of the shoulder between the populations of North American and East Asian. Clin Orthop Surg 8(3) :280–287, 2016. Crossref, Google Scholar
6. Clark EM, Ness AR, Tobias JH . Gender differences in the ratio between humerus width and length are established prior to puberty. Osteoporos Int 18(4) :463–470, 2007. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
7. De Wilde LF, Berghs BM, VandeVyver F, Schepens A, Verdonk RC . Glenohumeral relationship in the transverse plane of the body. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 12: 260–267, 2003. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
8. Dines DM, Warren RF, Inglis AE, Pavlov H . The coracoid impingement syndrome. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 72-B :314–316, 1990. Crossref, Google Scholar
9. Doyle AJ, Burks RT . Comparison of humeral head retroversion with the humeral axis/biceps groove relationship: A study in live subjects and cadavers. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 7 :453–457, 1998. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
10. Edelson G . Variations in the retroversion of the humeral head. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 8 :142–145, 1999. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
11. Farrokh D, Fabeck L, Descamps PY, Hardy D, Delince P . Computed tomography measurement of humeral head retroversion: Influence of patient positioning. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 10 :550–553, 2001. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
12. Fenlin JM, Vacaro A, Andreichik D, Lin S . Modular total shoulder: Early experience and impressions. Semin Arthroplasty 1 :102–111, 1990. Google Scholar
13. Figgie HE, Inglis AE, Goldberg VM, Ranawat CS, Figgie MP, Wile JM . An analysis of factors affecting the long-term results of total shoulder arthroplasty in inflammatory arthritis. J Arthroplasty 3(2) :123–130, 1988. Crossref, Google Scholar
14. Fischer LP, Carret JP, Gonon GP, Dimnet J . Cinematic study of the movements of the scapulo-humeral (articulatio humeri) joint. [French.] Rev Chir Orthop Repar Appar Mot 63(Suppl 2) :108–115, 1977. Google Scholar
15. Gebhart JJ, Miniaci A, Fening SD . Predictive anthropometric measurements for humeral head curvature. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 22 :842–847, 2013. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
16. Gerber C, Terrier F, Zehnder R, Ganz R . The subcoracoid space: An anatomic study. Clin Orthop 215 :132–138, 1987. Crossref, Google Scholar
17. Harrold F, Wigderowitz C . A three-dimensional analysis of humeral head retroversion. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 21(5) :612–617, 2012. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
18. Harryman DT, Sidles JA, Harris SL, Lippitt SB, Matsen FA . The effect of articular conformity and the size of the humeral head component on laxity and motion after gleno-humeral arthroplasty. A study in cadavera. J Bone Jt Surg Am 77 :555–563, 1995. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
19. Hertel R, Knothe U, Ballmer FT . Geometry of the proximal humerus and implications for prosthetic design. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 11(4) :331–338, (2002). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
20. Iannotti JP . Disorders of the Shoulder: Reconstruction, Vol. 1, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2013. Google Scholar
21. Iannotti JP, Gabriel JP, Schneck SL, Evans BG, Misra S . The normal glenohumeral relationships: An anatomical study of one hundred and forty shoulders. J Bone Joint Surg Am 74(4) :491–500, 1992. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
22. Iannotti JP, Williams GR . Total shoulder arthroplasty. Factors influencing prosthetic design. Clin Orthop Relat Res 29 :377–391, 1998. Google Scholar
23. Inyang A, Dey R, Mutsvangwa T, Roche S, Sivarasu S . Morphometric measurements of the South African proximal humerus. Bone Joint J 99-B. SUPP 1 :23. Available at http://bjjprocs.boneandjoint.org.uk/content/99-B/SUPP_1/23, 2017. Google Scholar
24. Jeong J, Bryan J, Iannotti JP . Effect of a variable prosthetic neck-shaft angle and the surgical technique on replication of normal humeral anatomy. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91(8) :1932–1941, 2009. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
25. Jobe CM, Iannotti JP . Limits imposed on glenohumeral motion by joint geometry. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 4 :281–285, 1995. Crossref, Google Scholar
26. Knowles NK, Carroll MJ, Keener JD, Ferreira LM, Athwal GS . A comparison of normal and osteoarthritic humeral head size and morphology. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 25(3) :502–550, 2016. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
27. Kummer FJ, Perkins R, Zuckerman JD . The use of the bicipital groove for alignment of the humeral stem in shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 7 :144–146, 1998. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
28. Matsumura N, Oki S, Ogawa K, Iwamoto T, Ochi K, Sato K, Nagura T . Three-dimensional anthropometric analysis of the glenohumeral joint in a normal Japanese population. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 25 :493–501, 2016. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
29. Milner GR, Boldsen JL . Humeral and femoral head diameters in recent white American skeletons. J Forensic Sci 57 :35–40, 2012. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
30. Moeckel BH, Altcheck DW, Warren RF, Wickiewicz TL, Dines DM . Instability of the shoulder after arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 75-A :492–497, 1993. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
31. Neer CS, Watson KC, Stanton FJ . Recent experience in total shoulder replacement. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 64-A :319–337, 1982. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
32. Pearl ML, Kurutz S . Geometric analysis of commonly used prosthetic systems for proximal humeral replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 81(5) :660–671, 1999. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
33. Pearl ML, Volk AG . Retroversion of the proximal humerus in relationship to prosthetic replacement arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 4 :286–289, 1995. Crossref, Google Scholar
34. Pearl ML, Volk AG . Coronal plane geometry of the proximal humerus relevant to prosthetic arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 5 :320–326, 1996. Crossref, Google Scholar
35. Pearl ML . Proximal humeral anatomy in shoulder arthroplasty: Implications for prosthetic design and surgical technique. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 14 :99S–104S, 2005. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
36. Posel D. What’s in a name? Racial categorisations under apartheid and their afterlife. Archived from the original on 2014-04-07. Transformation 47 ISSN 0258-7696, 2001. Google Scholar
37. Roberts SN, Foley AP, Swallow HM, Wallace WA, Coughlan DP . The geometry of the humeral head and the design of prostheses. J Bone Jt Surg Br 73 :647–650, 1991. Crossref, Google Scholar
38. Robertson DD, Yuan J, Bigliani LU, Flatow EL, Yamaguchi K . Three-dimensional analysis of the proximal part of the humerus: Relevance to arthroplasty. J Bone Jt Surg Am 82 :1594–1602, 2000. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
39. Roche C, Angibaud L, Flurin PH, Wright T, Fulkerson E, Zuckerman J . Anatomic validation of an “anatomic” shoulder system. Bull Hosp Jt Dis 63(3–4) :93–97, 2006. Google Scholar
40. Soslowsky LJ, Flatow EL, Bigliani LU, Mow VC . Articular geometry of the glenohumeral joint. Clin Orthop Relat Res 285 :181–190, 1992. Crossref, Google Scholar
41. Tackett JJ, Ablove RH . Magnetic resonance imaging study of glenohumeral relationships between genders. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 20 :1335–1339, 2011. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
42. Walch G, Boileau P, Noel E, Donnell ST . Impingement of the deep surface of the supraspinatus tendon on the posterosuperior glenoid rim: An arthroscopic study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 1 :238–245, 1992. Crossref, Google Scholar
43. Wang VM, Krishnan R, Ugwonali OF, Flatow EL, Bigliani LU, Ateshian GA . Biomechanical evaluation of a novel glenoid design in total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 14 :129S–140S, 2005. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
44. Wataru S, Kazuomi S, Yoshikazu N, Hiroaki I, Takaharu Y, Hideki Y . Three-dimensional morphological analysis of humeral heads: A study in cadavers. Acta Orthop 76 :392–396, 2005. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
45. Zhang L, Yuan B, Wang C, Liu Z . Comparison of anatomical shoulder prostheses and the proximal humeri of Chinese people. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 221(8) :921–927, 2007. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
46. Zhang Q, Shi LL, Ravella KC, Koh JL, Wang S, Liu C, Li G, Wang J . Distinct proximal humeral geometry in Chinese population and clinical relevance. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 98(24) :2071–2081, 2016. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
47. Zumstein V, Kraljević M, Hoechel S, Conzen A, Nowakowski AM, Müller-Gerb M . The glenohumeral joint - a mismatching system? A morphological analysis of the cartilaginous and osseous curvature of the humeral head and the glenoid cavity. J Orthop Surg Res 9 :34, 2014. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar