This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Letters to the Editor: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Letters to the Editor are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Robertson, D. D.
Right arrow Articles by Yamaguchi, K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Robertson, D. D.
Right arrow Articles by Yamaguchi, K.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 82:1594 (2000)
© 2000 The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.

Three-Dimensional Analysis of the Proximal Part of the Humerus: Relevance to Arthroplasty*

Douglas D. Robertson, M.D., Ph.D.{dagger}, Jie Yuan, Ph.D.{dagger}, Louis U. Bigliani, M.D.{ddagger}, Evan L. Flatow, M.D.§ and Ken Yamaguchi, M.D.{dagger}

Investigation performed at the Shoulder and Elbow Service, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Barnes-Jewish Hospital, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
*One or more of the authors has received or will receive benefits for personal or professional use from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article. Funds were received in total or partial support of the research or clinical study presented in this article. The funding source was the Zimmer Corporation.
{dagger}Shoulder and Elbow Service, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, 1 Barnes-Jewish Hospital Plaza, Suite 11300, West Pavilion, St. Louis, Missouri 63110.
{ddagger}Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Columbia University, New York, N.Y. 10032.
§Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Mt. Sinai University School of Medicine, New York, N.Y. 10029.

Background: Recreation of normal anatomical relationships may be important to optimize the outcome of proximal humeral arthroplasty. With use of computerized tomographic data and three-dimensional computer modeling, we concurrently studied both extramedullary and intramedullary humeral morphology, including canal shape, and related these findings to the design of proximal humeral prostheses.

Methods: Sixty cadaveric humeri (thirty pairs: fifteen from male donors and fifteen from female donors) were studied. Three-dimensional computer models were built from canal and periosteal contours extracted from computerized tomographic data and multiple measured anatomical parameters, including humeral canal axis, humeral head center, and hinge point offset; greater tuberosity and bicipital groove offset; humeral head center, radius, thickness, retroversion, and inclination; and size and torsion of sections of the canal.

Results: On the average, the humeral head center was offset both medially (seven millimeters) and posteriorly (two millimeters) from the humeral axis. The humeral head hinge point did not line up with the axis but instead was laterally offset by an average of seven millimeters. The average humeral head thickness was nineteen millimeters. The humeral head thickness and length were proportionately linked. There was marked variability in all of these parameters. Humeral head inclination averaged 41 degrees but was less variable than previously described, with 95 percent of our sample within the range of 35 to 46 degrees. The proximal section of the humeral canal was retroverted, and the retroversion was found to be similar to that of the humeral head on statistical analysis. Version of the middle and distal sections of the canal, however, was dissimilar to that of the proximal section of the canal. Proximal humeral retroversion was found to be extremely variable and averaged 19 degrees. The accuracy, reliability, and repeatability of the computer-based-model measurements were found to be excellent.

Conclusions: Measurements of external proximal humeral morphology made with three-dimensional computer models of cadaveric specimens derived from the Midwestern United States agreed, in general, with those described for different populations evaluated with different measuring techniques. Proximal humeral morphology was extremely variable as highlighted by the large ranges of measurements seen for all variables. Examination of the intramedullary morphology showed that there is an internal version, with measurements dependent on the canal distance distal to the anatomical neck.

Clinical Relevance: Because of the marked variabilities seen in proximal humeral morphology, newer prosthetic designs are now allowing surgeons to control multiple prosthetic variables. An understanding of the normal values for proximal humeral morphology can serve as an important guideline for component selection, especially when the normal anatomy is distorted. Additionally, variations in intramedullary version may have important consequences for future designs of press-fit proximal humeral replacement.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J Am Acad Orthop SurgHome page
S. J. Nho, R. H. Brophy, J. U. Barker, C. N. Cornell, and J. D. MacGillivray
Innovations in the Management of Displaced Proximal Humerus Fractures
J. Am. Acad. Ortho. Surg., January 1, 2007; 15(1): 12 - 26.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JBJSHome page
M. A. Wirth, M.-S. Lim, C. Southworth, R. Loredo, T. K. Kaar, and C. A. Rockwood Jr.
Compaction Bone-Grafting in Prosthetic Shoulder Arthroplasty
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., January 1, 2007; 89(1): 49 - 57.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Bone Joint Surg BrHome page
P. Boileau, R. J. Sinnerton, C. Chuinard, and G. Walch
Arthroplasty of the shoulder
J Bone Joint Surg Br, May 1, 2006; 88-B(5): 562 - 575.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JBJSHome page
F. A. Matsen III, J. P. Iannotti, and C. A. Rockwood Jr.
Humeral Fixation by Press-Fitting of a Tapered Metaphyseal Stem: A Prospective Radiographic Study
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., January 29, 2003; 85(2): 304 - 308.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JBJSHome page
P. Hernigou, F. Duparc, and A. Hernigou
Determining Humeral Retroversion with Computed Tomography
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., October 10, 2002; 84(10): 1753 - 1762.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JBJSHome page
D. D. Robertson, M. J. Mueller, K. E. Smith, P. K. Commean, T. Pilgram, and J. E. Johnson
Structural Changes in the Forefoot of Individuals with Diabetes and a Prior Plantar Ulcer
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., August 12, 2002; 84(8): 1395 - 1404.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]