Volume 8 | Issue 2 | Aug – Sep 2020 | Page: 37- 46 | Sandesh Madi S, Muthiah Muthu Magesh, Sujayendra DM, Vivek Pandey, Kiran K V Acharya
Authors: Sandesh Madi S , Muthiah Muthu Magesh , Sujayendra DM , Vivek Pandey , Kiran K V Acharya 
 Kasturba Medical College, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, India.
Address of Correspondence
Dr. Sandesh Madi S,
Kasturba Medical College, Manipal Academy of Higher
Education, Manipal, India.
Background: Awareness of the accurate dimensions of the coracoid is essential for (i) coracoclavicular ligament reconstructions and (ii) coracoid transfer procedures (e.g. Latarjet) for shoulder instability. The morphometric assessment of the coracoid process using three-dimensional computer tomography (3-D CT) in the Indian population has not been previously undertaken.
Materials and Methods: The study was aimed to conduct the morphometric assessment of coracoid process using 3-D CT reconstruction in the South Indian population and to compare the gender and side differences. In addition, we compared the dimensions of the coracoid process with the findings in the previous studies performed in different races and ethnicities. We also compared the results of our study with other morphometric studies conducted in India using dry bones. From the records, the 3D CT images of the shoulder (age between 20 and 60 years) were assessed. Fractures of the coracoid or previous history of surgery involving the coracoid were excluded from the study. The dimensions of coracoid were measured on the same final images by two observers using digital calipers, and an average of their measurements was recorded. A two-tailed independent t-test was used to measure the statistical significance.
Results: A total of 187 shoulders (120 males and 67 females), 3D CT images were assessed. The average age of the study population was 30.66 ± 7.21 years. The average length of coracoid was 40.11 ± 1.36 mm. Overall dimensions of tip of coracoid was 20.56 ± 1.67 mm (length), 13.01 ± 0.97 mm (width), and 9.24 ± 1.05mm (height). Overall dimensions of base of coracoid were 20.45 ± 2.26 mm (length) and 14.5 ± 0.86 mm (height). All the measurements were larger in males (P < 0.05). The side difference for all measurements was not statistically significant. The mean coracoid width was significantly larger than the mean coracoid thickness (P < 0.00001).
Conclusion: This study provides a comprehensive baseline data on the morphometry of the coracoid process in the South Indian population that will be valuable in pre-operative planning for the shoulder surgeons.
Keywords: Coracoid, Three-dimensional computer tomography scan, Tip, Base, Scapula, Shoulder.
1. Latarjet M. Technic of coracoid preglenoid arthroereisis in the treatment of recurrent dislocation of the shoulder. Lyon Chir 1958;54:604-7.
2. Gumina S, Postacchini F, Orsina L, Cinotti G. The morphometry of the coracoid process-its aetiologic role in subcoracoid impingement syndrome. Int Orthop 1999;23:198-201.
3. Coskun N, Karaali K, Cevikol C, Demirel BM, Sindel M. Anatomical basics and variations of the scapula in Turkish adults. Saudi Med J 2006;27:1320-5.
4. Salzmann GM, Paul J, Sandmann GH, Imhoff AB, Schöttle PB. The coracoidal insertion of the coracoclavicular ligaments: An anatomic study. Am J Sports Med 2008;36:2392-7.
5. Rios CG, Arciero RA, Mazzocca AD. Anatomy of the clavicle and coracoid process for reconstruction of the coracoclavicular ligaments. Am J Sports Med 2007;35:811-7.
6. Armitage MS, Elkinson I, Giles JW, Athwal GS. An anatomic, computed tomographic assessment of the coracoid process with special reference to the congruent-arc latarjet procedure. Arthroscopy 2011;27:1485-9.
7. Dolan CM, Hariri S, Hart ND, McAdams TR. An anatomic study of the coracoid process as it relates to bone transfer procedures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2011;20:497-501.
8. Coale RM, Hollister SJ, Dines JS, Allen AA, Bedi A. Anatomic considerations of transclavicular-transcoracoid drilling for coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2013;22:137-44.
9. Terra BB, Ejnisman B, De Figueiredo EA, Cohen C, Monteiro GC, De Castro Pochini A, et al. Anatomic study of the coracoid process: Safety margin and practical implications. Arthroscopy 2013;29:25-30.
10. Imma II, Nizlan MN, Ezamin AR, Yusoff S, Shukur MH. Coracoid process morphology using 3D-CT imaging in a Malaysian population. Malays Orthop J 2017;11:30-5.
11. Bueno RS, Ikemoto RY, Nascimento LG, Almeida LH, Strose E, Murachovsky J. Correlation of coracoid thickness and glenoid width: An anatomic morphometric analysis. Am J Sports Med 2012;40:1664-7.
12. Cho BP. Articular facets of the coracoclavicular joint in Koreans. Acta Anat (Basel) 1998;163:56-62.
13. Gallino M, Santamaria E, Doro T. Anthropometry of the scapula: Clinical and surgical considerations. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 1998;7:284-91.
14. Boutsiadis A, Bampis I, Swan J, Barth J. Best implant choice for coracoid graft fixation during the latarjet procedure depends on patients’ morphometric considerations. J Exp Orthop 2020;7:15.
15. Piyawinijwong S, Sirisathira N, Chuncharunee A. The scapula: Osseous dimensions and gender dimorphism in Thais. Siriraj Hosp Gaz 2004;56:356-65.
16. Von Schroeder HP, Kuiper SD, Botte MJ. Osseous anatomy of the scapula. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2001;383:131-9.
17. Cirpan S, Yonguc GN, Güvençer M. Morphometric analysis of coracoid process and glenoid cavity in terms of surgical approaches: An anatomical study. Kocaeli Med J 2018;7:131-7.
18. Lian J, Dong L, Zhao Y, Sun J, Zhang W, Gao C. Anatomical study of the coracoid process in Mongolian male cadavers using the latarjet procedure. J Orthop Surg Res 2016;11:126.
19. Shibata T, Izaki T, Miyake S, Doi N, Arashiro Y, Shibata Y, et al. Predictors of safety margin for coracoid transfer: A cadaveric morphometric analysis. J Orthop Surg Res 2019;14:10-5.
20. Knapik DM, Cumsky J, Tanenbaum JE, Voos JE, Gillespie RJ. Differences in coracoid and glenoid dimensions based on sex, race, and age: Implications for use of the latarjet technique in glenoid reconstruction. HSS J 2018;14:238-44.
21. Fathi M, Cheah PS, Ahmad U, Nasir MN, San AA, Rahim EA, et al. Anatomic variation in morphometry of human coracoid process among Asian population. Biomed Res Int 2017;2017:6307019.
22. Jia Y, He N, Liu J, Zhang G, Zhou J, Wu D, et al. Morphometric analysis of the coracoid process and glenoid width: A 3D-CT study. J Orthop Surg Res 2020;15:1-7.
23. Khan R, Satyapal KS, Lazarus L, Naidoo N. An anthropometric evaluation of the scapula, with emphasis on the coracoid process and glenoid fossa in a South African population. Heliyon 2020;6:e03107.
24. Lo IK, Burkhart SS, Parten PM. Surgery about the coracoid: Neurovascular structures at risk. Arthroscopy 2004;20:591-5.
25. Chavan SR, Bhoir MM, Verma S. A study of anthropometric measurements of the human scapula in Maharashtra, India. Int J Anat 2017;1:23-6.
26. Rajan S, Ritika S, K.J S, Kumar S, Tripta S. Role of coracoid morphometry in subcoracoid impingement syndrome. Internet J Orthop Surg 2014;22:1-7.
27. Mehta V. Osteometric assessment of coracoid process of scapula-clinical implications. J Surg Acad 2018;8:3-10.
28. Jagiasi J, Yeotiwad G, Bhoir M, Sahu D. Anatomic measurements of the coracoid and its implication in the latarjet procedure. Int J Orthop Sci 2017;3:533-5.
29. Nayak G, Panda SK, Chinara PK. Acromion, coracoid and glenoid processes of scapula: An anatomical study. Int J Res Med Sci 2020;8:570.
30. Lingamdenne PE, Marapaka P. Measurement and analysis of anthropometric measurements of the human scapula in Telangana region, India. Int J Anat Res 2016;4:2677-83.
31. Kalra S, Thamke S, Khandelwal A, Khorwal G. Morphometric analysis and surgical anatomy of coracoid process and glenoid cavity. J Anat Soc India 2016;65:114-7.
32. Parmar T, Geethanjali BS. A study of anthropometric measurement of human dry scapula and its clinical importance. Sch Int J Anat Physiol 2019;8618:187-93.
33. Verma U, Singroha R, Malik P, Rathee SK. A study on morphometry of coracoid process of scapula in North Indian population. Int J Res Med Sci 2017;5:4970.
34. Gregori M, Eichelberger L, Gahleitner C, Hajdu S, Pretterklieber M. Relationship between the thickness of the coracoid process and latarjet graft positioning-an anatomical study on 70 embalmed scapulae. J Clin Med 2020;9:207.
35. Eyres KS, Brooks A, Stanley D. Fractures of the coracoid process. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1995;77:425-8.
36. Ljungquist KL, Butler RB, Griesser MJ, Bishop JY. Prediction of coracoid thickness using a glenoid width-based model: Implications for bone reconstruction procedures in chronic anterior shoulder instability. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2012;21:815-21.
37. Bonazza NA, Liu G, Leslie DL, Dhawan A. Trends in surgical management of shoulder instability. Orthop J Sports Med 2017;5:1-7.
38. Zhang AL, Montgomery SR, Ngo SS, Hame SL, Wang JC, Gamradt SC. Arthroscopic versus open shoulder stabilization: Current practice patterns in the United States. Arthroscopy 2014;30:436-43.
39. Beer JF, Roberts C. Glenoid bone defects-open latarjet with congruent arc modification. Orthop Clin North Am 2010;41:407-15.
|How to Cite this article: Madi SS, Magesh MM, Sujayendra DM, Pandey V, Acharya KKV | A Comprehensive Assessment of the Coracoid Process Dimensions in the South Indian Population Using 3D Computer Tomographic Reconstruction | Journal of Karnataka Orthopaedic Association | August-September 2020; 8(2): 37-45.|