This retrospective MRI study asks whether glenoid orientation relates to rotator cuff tears. Ninety-six shoulders undergoing open cuff repair were compared to 30 controls. Three angles were measured to link scapular geometry to the presence and location of the tear.
The traditional model of cuff disease is extrinsic impingement under the acromion (Neer) and the hooked acromion (Bigliani). This paper adds glenoid geometry as a second morphologic risk factor, and it does something the acromial work does not: it predicts WHERE the cuff fails, not just whether it fails.
The mental model to carry: version relative to the supraspinatus fossa creates a sustained gliding vector. Retroversion drives the head anteriorly and stresses the anterior cuff. Anteversion drives it posteriorly and stresses the posterior cuff.
Interpret this cautiously. This is a retrospective, non-consecutive series with acknowledged selection bias, and cause versus effect is unproven. The measurement is relative to the supraspinatus fossa axis, not the standard scapular plane, so the numbers are not interchangeable with routine version reports.
This retrospective MRI study asks whether glenoid orientation relates to rotator cuff tears. Ninety-six shoulders undergoing open cuff repair were compared to 30 controls. Three angles were measured to link scapular geometry to the presence and location of the tear.
The traditional model of cuff disease is extrinsic impingement under the acromion (Neer) and the hooked acromion (Bigliani). This paper adds glenoid geometry as a second morphologic risk factor, and it does something the acromial work does not: it predicts WHERE the cuff fails, not just whether it fails.
The mental model to carry: version relative to the supraspinatus fossa creates a sustained gliding vector. Retroversion drives the head anteriorly and stresses the anterior cuff. Anteversion drives it posteriorly and stresses the posterior cuff.
Interpret this cautiously. This is a retrospective, non-consecutive series with acknowledged selection bias, and cause versus effect is unproven. The measurement is relative to the supraspinatus fossa axis, not the standard scapular plane, so the numbers are not interchangeable with routine version reports.