Automatic bicipital groove identification in arthritic humeri for preoperative planning: A Random Forest Classifier approach.

The bicipital groove is an important anatomical feature of the proximal humerus that needs to be identified during surgical planning for procedures such as shoulder arthroplasty and proximal humeral fracture reconstruction. Current algorithms for automatic identification prove ineffective in arthritic humeri due to the presence of osteophytes, reducing their usefulness for total shoulder arthroplasty. Our methodology involves the use of a Random Forest Classifier (RFC) to automatically detect the bicipital groove on segmented computed tomography scans of humeri. We evaluated our model on two distinct test datasets: one comprising non-arthritic humeri and another with arthritic humeri characterized by significant osteophytes. Our model detected the bicipital groove with a mean absolute error of less than 1mm on arthritic humeri, demonstrating a significant improvement over the previous gold standard approach. Successful identification of the bicipital groove with a high degree of accuracy even in arthritic humeri was accomplished. This model is open source and included in the python package shoulder.

Stemless reverse humeral component neck-shaft angle has an influence on initial fixation.

BACKGROUND: Stemless anatomic humeral components are commonly used and are an accepted alternative to traditional stemmed implants in patients with good bone quality. Presently, little literature exists on the design and implantation parameters that influence primary time-zero fixation of stemless reverse humeral implants. Accordingly, this finite element analysis study assessed the surgical implantation variable of neck-shaft angle, and its effect on the primary time-zero fixation of reversed stemless humeral implants. METHODS: Eight computed tomography-derived humeral finite element models were used to examine a generic stemless humeral implant at varying neck-shaft angles of 130°, 135°, 140°, 145°, and 150°. Four loading scenarios (30° shoulder abduction with neutral forearm rotation, 30° shoulder abduction with forearm supination, a head-height lifting motion, and a single-handed steering motion) were employed. Implantation inclinations were compared based on the maximum bone-implant interface distraction detected after loading. RESULTS: The implant-bone distraction was greatest in the 130° neck-shaft angle implantation cases. All implant loading scenarios elicited significantly lower micromotion magnitudes when neck-shaft angle was increased (P = .0001). With every 5° increase in neck-shaft angle, there was an average 17% reduction in bone-implant distraction. CONCLUSIONS: The neck-shaft angle of implantation for a stemless reverse humeral component is a modifiable parameter that appears to influence time-zero implant stability. Lower, more varus, neck-shaft angles increase bone-implant distractions with simulated activities of daily living. It is therefore suggested that humeral head osteotomies at a higher neck-shaft angle may be beneficial to maximize stemless humeral component stability.

Implications of humeral short-stem diametral sizing on implant stability.

Background: Shoulder arthroplasty humeral stem design has evolved to include various shapes, coatings, lengths, sizes, and fixation methods. While necessary to accommodate patient anatomy characteristics, this creates a surgical paradox of choice. The relationship between the surgeon's selection of short-stem implant size and construct stiffness, resistance to subsidence and micromotion has not been assessed. Methods: Eight paired cadaveric humeri were reconstructed with surgeon-selected (SS) and 2-mm diametrically larger (SS+2) short-stemmed press-fit implants. Each reconstruction was subjected to 2000 cycles of 90° forward flexion loading, and stem subsidence and micromotion were measured using optical tracking. Compressive stiffness of the stem-bone reconstruction was then assessed by applying a load in-line with the stem axis that resulted in 5 mm of stem subsidence. Results: Increasing stem size by 2 mm resulted in the construct stiffness more than doubling compared to SS stems (-741 ± 243 N/mm vs. -334 ± 120 N/mm; P = .003; power = 0.971). These larger stems also subsided significantly less than their SS counterparts (SS: 1.2 ± 0.6 mm; SS+2: 0.5 ± 0.5 mm; P = .029; power = 0.66), though there were no significant changes in micromotion (SS: 169 ± 59 µm; SS+2: 187 ± 52 µm; P = .506; power = 0.094). Conclusions: The results of this study highlight the importance of proper short-stem sizing, as a relatively small 2 mm increase in diametral size was observed to significantly impact construct stiffness, which could increase the risk of stress shielding and implant loosening. Future work should focus on developing tools that objectively quantify bone quality and aid surgeons in selecting the appropriate size short-stem humeral implants for a particular patient.

The effect of humeral head positioning and incomplete backside contact on bone stresses following total shoulder arthroplasty with a short humeral stem.

BACKGROUND: The use of uncemented humeral stems in total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) is known to be associated with stress shielding. This may be decreased with smaller stems that are well-aligned and do not fill the intramedullary canal; however, the effect of humeral head positioning and incomplete head backside contact has not yet been investigated. The purpose of this study was to quantify the effect of changes in humeral head position and incomplete head backside contact on bone stresses and expected bone response following reconstruction. METHODS: Three-dimensional finite element models of 8 cadaveric humeri were generated, which were then virtually reconstructed with a short-stem implant. An optimally sized humeral head was then positioned in both a superolateral and inferomedial position for each specimen that was in full contact with the humeral resection plane. Additionally, for the inferomedial position, 2 incomplete humeral head backside contact conditions were simulated whereby contact was defined between only the superior or inferior half of the backside of the humeral head and the resection plane. Trabecular properties were assigned based on computed tomography attenuation and cortical bone was applied uniform properties. Loads representing 45° and 75° of abduction were then applied, and the resulting differentials in bone stress versus the corresponding intact state and the expected time-zero bone response were determined and compared. RESULTS: The superolateral position reduced resorbing potential in the lateral cortex and increased resorbing potential in the lateral trabecular bone, while the inferomedial position produced the same effects but in the medial quadrant. For the inferomedial position, full backside contact with the resection plane was best in terms of changes in bone stress and expected bone response, although a small region of the medial cortex did experience no load transfer. The implant-bone load transfer of the inferior contact condition was concentrated at the midline of the backside of the humeral head, leaving the medial aspect largely unloaded as a result of the lack of lateral backside support. DISCUSSION: This study shows that inferomedial humeral head positioning loads the medial cortex at the cost of unloading the medial trabecular bone, with the same occurring for the superolateral position except that the lateral cortex is loaded at the cost of unloading the lateral trabecular bone. Inferomedial positioned heads also were predisposed to humeral head lift-off from the medial cortex, which may increase the risk of calcar stress shielding. For the inferomedial head position, full contact between the implant and resection plane was preferable.

The sizing and suitability of nonspherical ellipsoid humeral heads for total shoulder arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) implants have evolved to include more anatomically shaped components that better replicate the native state. The geometry of the humeral head is nonspherical, with the frontal diameter of the base of the head being up to 6% larger than the sagittal diameter. Despite this, most TSA humeral head implants are spherical, meaning that the diameter must be oversized to achieve complete coverage, resulting in articular overhang, or portions of the resection plane will remain uncovered. It is suggested that implant-bone load transfer between the backside of the humeral head and the cortex on the resection plane may yield better load-transfer characteristics if resection coverage were properly matched without overhang, thereby mitigating proximal stress shielding. METHODS: Eight paired cadaveric humeri were prepared for TSA by an orthopedic surgeon who selected and prepared the anatomic humeral resection plane using a cutting guide and a reciprocating sagittal saw. The humeral head was resected, and the resulting cortical boundary of the resection plane was digitized using a stylus and an optical tracking system. To simulate optimal sizing of both circular and elliptical humeral heads, both circles and ellipses were fit to the traces. Two extreme scenarios were also investigated: upsizing until 100% total coverage and downsizing until 0% overhang. RESULTS: By switching from a spherical (circular) to an ellipsoid (elliptical) humeral head, a small, 2.3% ± 0.3% increase in total coverage occurred (P < .001), which led to a large, 19.5% ± 1.3% increase in cortical coverage (P < .001). Using a circular head resulted in 2.0% ± 0.1% greater overhang (P < .001), defined as a percentage of the total enclosed area that exceeded the bounds of the humeral resection. As a result of increasing the head size until 100% resection coverage occurred, the ellipse produced 5.4% ± 3.5% less overhang than the circle (P < .001). When the head size was decreased until 0% overhang occurred, total coverage was 7.5% ± 2.8% greater for the ellipse (P < .001) and cortical coverage was 7.9% ± 8.2% greater for the ellipse (P = .01). Cortical coverage was greater for circular heads when the head size was shrunk below -2.25% of the optimal fitted size. DISCUSSION: Reconstruction with ellipsoid humeral heads can provide greater total resection and cortical coverage than spherical humeral heads while avoiding excessive overhang; however, cortical coverage can be inferior when undersized. These initial findings suggest that resection-matched humeral heads may yield benefits worth pursuing in the next generation of TSA implant design.