Differences in Osseous Shoulder Morphology, Scapulothoracic Orientation, and Muscle Volume in Patients With Constitutional Static Posterior Shoulder Instability (Type C1) Compared With Healthy Controls

Background: Constitutional static posterior humeral decentering (type C1 according to ABC Classification) has been recognized as a pre-osteoarthritic deformity that may lead to early-onset posterior decentering osteoarthritis at a young age. Therefore, it is important to identify possible associations of this pathologic shoulder condition to find more effective treatment options. Purpose: To perform a comprehensive analysis of all parameters reported to be associated with a C1 shoulder-including the osseous shoulder morphology, scapulothoracic orientation, and the muscle volume of the shoulder girdle in a single patient cohort. Study Design: Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A retrospective, comparative study was conducted analyzing 17 C1 shoulders in 10 patients who underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with the complete depiction of the trunk from the base of the skull to the iliac crest, including both humeri. The mean age of the patients was 33.5 years, and all patients were men. To measure and compare the osseous shoulder morphology (glenoid version, glenoid offset, humeral torsion, anterior acromial coverage, posterior acromial coverage, posterior acromial height, and posterior acromial tilt) and scapulothoracic orientation (scapular protraction, scapular internal rotation, scapular upward rotation, scapular translation, scapular tilt, and thoracic kyphosis), these patients were matched 1 to 4 according their age, sex, and affected side with shoulder-healthy patients who had received positron emission tomography (PET)-computed tomography. To measure and compare the muscle volume of the shoulder girdle (subscapularis, infraspinatus/teres minor, supraspinatus, trapezius, deltoid, latissimus dorsi/teres major, pectoralis major, and pectoralis minor), patients were matched 1 to 2 with patients who had received PET-MRI. Patients with visible pathologies of the upper extremities were excluded. Results: The C1 group had a significantly higher glenoid retroversion, increased anterior glenoid offset, reduced humeral retrotorsion, increased anterior acromial coverage, reduced posterior acromial coverage, increased posterior acromial height, and increased posterior acromial tilt compared with controls (P < .05). Decreased humeral retrotorsion showed significant correlation with higher glenoid retroversion (r = -0.742; P < .001) and higher anterior glenoid offset (r = -0.757; P < .001). Significant differences were found regarding less scapular upward rotation, less scapular tilt, and less thoracic kyphosis in the C1 group (P < .05). The muscle volume of the trapezius and deltoid was significantly higher in the C1 group (P < .05). Conclusion: Patients with C1 shoulders differ from healthy controls regarding osseous scapular and humeral morphology, scapulothoracic orientation, and shoulder girdle muscle distribution. These differences may be crucial in understanding the delicate balance of glenohumeral centering.