PURPOSE: This study evaluated the agreement between 2D and 3D computed tomography (CT) measurements in identifying the size and type of glenoid-bone defect in anterior glenohumeral instability. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred patients affected by unilateral anterior glenohumeral instability underwent a CT of both shoulders. Images were processed with both 2D [multiplanar reconstruction (MPR)] and 3D [volumerendering (VR)] methods. The area of the missing glenoid was calculated in comparison with the healthy glenoid and expressed as a percentage. Agreement between the two measurements was assessed according to the Bland-Altman method; a 5% mean difference was considered as clinically relevant. RESULTS: Analysis of agreement between MPR and VR measurements of the percentage of missing glenoid showed a mean difference equal to 0.62%±1.96%. Percent agreement between the two measurements in detecting the presence of bone defect was 97% (p<0.0001). Percent agreement between the two measurements in discriminating the type of bone defect was 97% (p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Agreement between 2D (MPR) and 3D (VR) CT measurements to identify the size and type of glenoid-bone defect in anterior glenohumeral instability was so high that the two measurements can be considered interchangeable.
PURPOSE: This study evaluated the agreement between 2D and 3D computed tomography (CT) measurements in identifying the size and type of glenoid-bone defect in anterior glenohumeral instability. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred patients affected by unilateral anterior glenohumeral instability underwent a CT of both shoulders. Images were processed with both 2D [multiplanar reconstruction (MPR)] and 3D [volumerendering (VR)] methods. The area of the missing glenoid was calculated in comparison with the healthy glenoid and expressed as a percentage. Agreement between the two measurements was assessed according to the Bland-Altman method; a 5% mean difference was considered as clinically relevant. RESULTS: Analysis of agreement between MPR and VR measurements of the percentage of missing glenoid showed a mean difference equal to 0.62%±1.96%. Percent agreement between the two measurements in detecting the presence of bone defect was 97% (p<0.0001). Percent agreement between the two measurements in discriminating the type of bone defect was 97% (p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Agreement between 2D (MPR) and 3D (VR) CT measurements to identify the size and type of glenoid-bone defect in anterior glenohumeral instability was so high that the two measurements can be considered interchangeable.
Authors: Patrick E Greis; Matthew G Scuderi; Alexander Mohr; Kent N Bachus; Robert T Burks Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2002 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: Pol E Huijsmans; Pieter S Haen; Martin Kidd; Wouter J Dhert; Victor P M van der Hulst; W Jaap Willems Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2007 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: Hans-Christian Jeske; Martina Oberthaler; Michael Klingensmith; Christian Dallapozza; Vinzenz Smekal; Markus Wambacher; Franz Kralinger Journal: Surg Radiol Anat Date: 2009-03-28 Impact factor: 1.246
Authors: Matthew T Provencher; Alvin J Detterline; Neil Ghodadra; Anthony A Romeo; Bernard R Bach; Brian J Cole; Nikhil Verma Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2008-03-19 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Stephen A Parada; Matthew C Jones; Mikalyn T DeFoor; B Gage Griswold; Aaron D Roberts; Matthew T Provencher Journal: J Orthop Date: 2020-09-22
Authors: Alessandro Stecco; Elena Guenzi; Teresa Cascone; Francesco Fabbiano; Paolo Fornara; Paolo Oronzo; Federico Alberto Grassi; Gregorio Cecchi; Mario Caniggia; Marco Brambilla; Alessandro Carriero Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2013-05-27 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Troy D Bornes; Jacob L Jaremko; Lauren A Beaupre; Martin J Bouliane Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2014-09-24 Impact factor: 4.342