Validation of a 3D CT imaging method for quantifying implant migration following anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty. Issue 6 (6th September 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Jun, Bong‐Jae; Ricchetti, Eric T.; Haladik, Jeffrey; Bey, Michael J.; Patterson, Thomas E.; Subhas, Naveen; Li, Zong‐Ming; Iannotti, Joseph P.
• Is Part Of: Journal of orthopaedic research. Volume 40:Issue 6(2022)
• Page Start: 1270
• Page End: 1280
• Publication Date: 2021-09-06
• Subjects: computed tomography -- imaging -- radiostereometric analysis -- three‐dimensional -- total shoulder arthroplasty; Orthopedics -- Periodicals; Musculoskeletal system -- Periodicals; 616.7
• DOI: 10.1002/jor.25170
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0736-0266

Abstract

Abstract: Glenoid component loosening remains a common complication following anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA); however, plain radiographs are unable to accurately detect early implant migration. The purpose of this study was to validate the accuracy of a method of postoperative, three‐dimensional (3D) computed tomography (CT) imaging with metal artifact reduction (MAR) to detect glenoid component migration following anatomic TSA. Tantalum bead markers were inserted into polyethylene glenoid components for implant detection on 3D CT. In‐vitro validation was performed using a glenoid component placed into a scapula sawbone and incrementally translated and rotated, with MAR 3D CT acquired at each test position. Accuracy was evaluated by root mean square error (RMSE). In‐vivo validation was performed on six patients who underwent anatomic TSA, with two postoperative CT scans acquired in each patient and marker‐based radiostereometric analysis (RSA) performed on the same days. Glenoid component migration was calculated relative to a scapular coordinate system for both MAR 3D CT and RSA. Accuracy was evaluated by RMSE and paired Student's t ‐tests. The largest RMSE on in‐vitro testing was 0.24 mm in translation and 0.11° in rotation, and on in‐vivo testing was 0.47 mm in translation and 1.04° in rotation. There were no significant differences between MAR 3D CT and RSA measurement methods. MAR 3D CT imaging is capable of quantifying glenoid component migration with a high level of accuracy. MAR 3D CT imaging is advantageous over RSA because it is readily available clinically and can also be used to evaluate the implant‐bone interface.