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

Background: 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. Methods: Thirty patients who had undergone conventional CT scans were included. Two orth...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Clinics in shoulder and elbow 2020, Vol.23 (3), p.119-124
Main Authors: Choi, Chang-Hyuk, Kim, Hee-Chan, Kang, Daewon, Kim, Jun-Young
Format: Article
Language:Korean
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by
cites
container_end_page 124
container_issue 3
container_start_page 119
container_title Clinics in shoulder and elbow
container_volume 23
creator Choi, Chang-Hyuk
Kim, Hee-Chan
Kang, Daewon
Kim, Jun-Young
description Background: 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. Methods: 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). Results: Mean glenoid version and inclination in 2D measurements were -1.705° and 9.08°, respectively, while those in 3D measurements were 2.635° and 7.23°. 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. Conclusions: 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.
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>kisti</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_kisti_ndsl_JAKO202032362242487</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>JAKO202032362242487</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-kisti_ndsl_JAKO2020323622424873</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNjEFLw0AQhYMoWGz_w1w8BtLZYNajFEX04MV72WYn6eDuTtnZVPpX_LWm4sWbp_cefO-7qBaI1ta2w_Xl3I01tTWmu65WqrxrWoP33boxi-prI_Hgsit8JNAy-RPIAGOgJOzhSFlZErjkgVMfOM3gvCflNEL5lNpzpHRmXACObiSFIUuEftZOhTwUiTJmd9iffixln4n-vDL1krTkqT_jO0kEUTwFXVZXgwtKq9-8qW6fHt83z_UHa-Ft8hq2Lw-vb9hgY9DcIbbY2s78l_sGTxBcuA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparative study of glenoid version and inclination using two-dimensional images from computed tomography and three-dimensional reconstructed bone models</title><source>PubMed Central</source><source>EZB Electronic Journals Library</source><creator>Choi, Chang-Hyuk ; Kim, Hee-Chan ; Kang, Daewon ; Kim, Jun-Young</creator><creatorcontrib>Choi, Chang-Hyuk ; Kim, Hee-Chan ; Kang, Daewon ; Kim, Jun-Young</creatorcontrib><description>Background: 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. Methods: 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). Results: Mean glenoid version and inclination in 2D measurements were -1.705° and 9.08°, respectively, while those in 3D measurements were 2.635° and 7.23°. 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. Conclusions: 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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2383-8337</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2288-8721</identifier><language>kor</language><ispartof>Clinics in shoulder and elbow, 2020, Vol.23 (3), p.119-124</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>230,315,786,790,891,4043</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Choi, Chang-Hyuk</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kim, Hee-Chan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kang, Daewon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kim, Jun-Young</creatorcontrib><title>Comparative study of glenoid version and inclination using two-dimensional images from computed tomography and three-dimensional reconstructed bone models</title><title>Clinics in shoulder and elbow</title><addtitle>Clinics in shoulder and elbow</addtitle><description>Background: 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. Methods: 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). Results: Mean glenoid version and inclination in 2D measurements were -1.705° and 9.08°, respectively, while those in 3D measurements were 2.635° and 7.23°. 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. Conclusions: 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.</description><issn>2383-8337</issn><issn>2288-8721</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqNjEFLw0AQhYMoWGz_w1w8BtLZYNajFEX04MV72WYn6eDuTtnZVPpX_LWm4sWbp_cefO-7qBaI1ta2w_Xl3I01tTWmu65WqrxrWoP33boxi-prI_Hgsit8JNAy-RPIAGOgJOzhSFlZErjkgVMfOM3gvCflNEL5lNpzpHRmXACObiSFIUuEftZOhTwUiTJmd9iffixln4n-vDL1krTkqT_jO0kEUTwFXVZXgwtKq9-8qW6fHt83z_UHa-Ft8hq2Lw-vb9hgY9DcIbbY2s78l_sGTxBcuA</recordid><startdate>2020</startdate><enddate>2020</enddate><creator>Choi, Chang-Hyuk</creator><creator>Kim, Hee-Chan</creator><creator>Kang, Daewon</creator><creator>Kim, Jun-Young</creator><scope>JDI</scope></search><sort><creationdate>2020</creationdate><title>Comparative study of glenoid version and inclination using two-dimensional images from computed tomography and three-dimensional reconstructed bone models</title><author>Choi, Chang-Hyuk ; Kim, Hee-Chan ; Kang, Daewon ; Kim, Jun-Young</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-kisti_ndsl_JAKO2020323622424873</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>kor</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Choi, Chang-Hyuk</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kim, Hee-Chan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kang, Daewon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kim, Jun-Young</creatorcontrib><collection>KoreaScience</collection><jtitle>Clinics in shoulder and elbow</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Choi, Chang-Hyuk</au><au>Kim, Hee-Chan</au><au>Kang, Daewon</au><au>Kim, Jun-Young</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparative study of glenoid version and inclination using two-dimensional images from computed tomography and three-dimensional reconstructed bone models</atitle><jtitle>Clinics in shoulder and elbow</jtitle><addtitle>Clinics in shoulder and elbow</addtitle><date>2020</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>23</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>119</spage><epage>124</epage><pages>119-124</pages><issn>2383-8337</issn><eissn>2288-8721</eissn><notes>KISTI1.1003/JNL.JAKO202032362242487</notes><abstract>Background: 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. Methods: 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). Results: Mean glenoid version and inclination in 2D measurements were -1.705° and 9.08°, respectively, while those in 3D measurements were 2.635° and 7.23°. 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. Conclusions: 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.</abstract><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2383-8337
ispartof Clinics in shoulder and elbow, 2020, Vol.23 (3), p.119-124
issn 2383-8337
2288-8721
language kor
recordid cdi_kisti_ndsl_JAKO202032362242487
source PubMed Central; EZB Electronic Journals Library
title Comparative study of glenoid version and inclination using two-dimensional images from computed tomography and three-dimensional reconstructed bone models
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-09-22T04%3A39%3A43IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-kisti&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparative%20study%20of%20glenoid%20version%20and%20inclination%20using%20two-dimensional%20images%20from%20computed%20tomography%20and%20three-dimensional%20reconstructed%20bone%20models&rft.jtitle=Clinics%20in%20shoulder%20and%20elbow&rft.au=Choi,%20Chang-Hyuk&rft.date=2020&rft.volume=23&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=119&rft.epage=124&rft.pages=119-124&rft.issn=2383-8337&rft.eissn=2288-8721&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Ckisti%3EJAKO202032362242487%3C/kisti%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-kisti_ndsl_JAKO2020323622424873%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true