Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Imaging Studies III: Computed Tomography01:27

Imaging Studies III: Computed Tomography

135
DefinitionComputed Tomography (CT) of the genitourinary (GU) tract is a non-invasive imaging modality that utilizes X-rays and computer processing to generate detailed cross-sectional images of the urinary system, encompassing the kidneys, ureters, bladder, and adjacent structures such as the adrenal glands.PurposeCT scans of the GU tract serve several diagnostic and therapeutic purposes, including:Diagnosis of Urinary Tract Diseases: Detects kidney stones, tumors, cysts, and congenital...
135
Computed Tomography01:10

Computed Tomography

7.6K
Tomography refers to imaging by sections. Computed tomography (CT) is a non-invasive imaging technique that uses computers to analyze several cross-sectional X-rays to reveal minute details about structures in the body.
The technique was invented in the 1970s and is based on the principle that as X-rays pass through the body, they are absorbed or reflected at different levels. In the technique, a patient lies on a motorized platform while a computerized axial tomography (CAT) scanner rotates...
7.6K

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Does Preoperative Arthritis Affect the Outcomes of Superior Capsular Reconstruction? A Systematic Review.

Clinics in orthopedic surgery·2026
Same author

The Optimal Fibular Strut Bone Graft Fixation Angle for Unstable Proximal Humerus Fractures: A Finite Element Analysis.

Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)·2025
Same author

Locking Plate with Cerclage Wiring Versus Hook Plate Fixation for Unstable Distal Clavicle Fractures: Is There Still a Role for Hook Plates?

Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania)·2025
Same author

Advancing Precision in Shoulder Arthroplasty: Patient-Specific Instrumentation, Navigation, and Emerging Technologies.

Clinics in orthopedic surgery·2025
Same author

Epidemiology and Etiology of Elbow Pain Based on the Healthcare Bigdata Hub in Korea: A Longitudinal Observational Study.

Ewha medical journal·2025
Same author

Anatomical Analysis of Bicipital Groove and Its Spur Formation Using 3D-CT: A Retrospective Observational Study.

Life (Basel, Switzerland)·2025

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Nov 25, 2025

Measuring 3D In-vivo Shoulder Kinematics using Biplanar Videoradiography
06:09

Measuring 3D In-vivo Shoulder Kinematics using Biplanar Videoradiography

Published on: March 12, 2021

3.5K

Difference in glenoid retroversion between two-dimensional axial computed tomography and three-dimensional

Hyungsuk Kim1, Chang Hyun Yoo1, Soo Bin Park1

  • 1Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Eunpyeong St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea.

Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow
|December 17, 2020
PubMed
Summary

Three-dimensional (3D) reconstructed computed tomography (CT) images provide a more accurate glenoid version measurement than traditional two-dimensional (2D) CT scans. This difference is significant across multiple glenoid levels, impacting shoulder arthroplasty outcomes.

Keywords:
Bone retroversionMultidetector computed tomographyScapulaShoulderThree dimensional

More Related Videos

Three-Dimensional Preoperative Virtual Planning in Derotational Proximal Femoral Osteotomy
08:15

Three-Dimensional Preoperative Virtual Planning in Derotational Proximal Femoral Osteotomy

Published on: February 17, 2023

1.3K
Four-Dimensional CT Analysis Using Sequential 3D-3D Registration
05:05

Four-Dimensional CT Analysis Using Sequential 3D-3D Registration

Published on: November 23, 2019

8.3K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Nov 25, 2025

Measuring 3D In-vivo Shoulder Kinematics using Biplanar Videoradiography
06:09

Measuring 3D In-vivo Shoulder Kinematics using Biplanar Videoradiography

Published on: March 12, 2021

3.5K
Three-Dimensional Preoperative Virtual Planning in Derotational Proximal Femoral Osteotomy
08:15

Three-Dimensional Preoperative Virtual Planning in Derotational Proximal Femoral Osteotomy

Published on: February 17, 2023

1.3K
Four-Dimensional CT Analysis Using Sequential 3D-3D Registration
05:05

Four-Dimensional CT Analysis Using Sequential 3D-3D Registration

Published on: November 23, 2019

8.3K

Area of Science:

  • Orthopedic Surgery
  • Radiology
  • Biomedical Imaging

Background:

  • Glenoid version is a critical factor influencing glenohumeral joint stability and total shoulder arthroplasty outcomes.
  • Accurate measurement of glenoid version is essential for pre-operative planning and predicting surgical success.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To compare the accuracy of glenoid version measurements between traditional two-dimensional (2D) computed tomography (CT) and three-dimensional (3D) reconstructed CT images.
  • To analyze differences in glenoid version measurements at multiple specific levels of the glenoid.

Main Methods:

  • Thirty shoulder CT scans (15 male, 15 female) were analyzed.
  • Glenoid version was assessed using 2D axial CT slices and 3D reconstructed images at three defined levels (midpoint, upper one-third, lower circle center).
  • Measurements were compared using Friedman's method, analyzing the angular difference between the scapular body axis and the CT slice axis.

Main Results:

  • A significant angular difference (mean 38.4°) was observed between the scapular body axis on 3D images and the 2D CT slice axis.
  • Statistically significant differences in glenoid version measurements were found between 2D CT and 3D reconstructed images at all three assessed levels.
  • Specific mean differences ranged from 1.7°±4.9° (2D) vs. -1.8°±4.1° (3D) at the midpoint to 2.7°±5.2° (2D) vs. -0.5°±4.8° (3D) at the lower circle center.

Conclusions:

  • Glenoid version measurements differ significantly between axial 2D CT and 3D reconstructed CT imaging.
  • Three-dimensional reconstructed imaging offers a more accurate assessment of glenoid version compared to 2D CT.
  • The discrepancy in measurements highlights the importance of considering imaging modality and measurement level in glenoid version analysis.