BACKGROUND: Glenoid support is critical for stability of the glenohumeral joint. An accepted noninvasive method of quantifying glenoid bone loss does not exist. PURPOSE: To perform independent evaluations of the reliability and accuracy of standard 2-dimensional (2-D) and 3-dimensional (3-D) computed tomography (CT) measurements of glenoid bone deficiency. STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive laboratory study. METHODS: Two sawbone models were used; one served as a model for 2 anterior glenoid defects and the other for 2 anteroinferior defects. For each scapular model, predefect and defect data were collected for a total of 6 data sets. Each sample underwent 3-D laser scanning followed by CT scanning. Six physicians measured linear indicators of bone loss (defect length and width-to-length ratio) on both 2-D and 3-D CT and quantified bone loss using the glenoid index method on 2-D CT and using the glenoid index, ratio, and Pico methods on 3-D CT. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to assess agreement, and percentage error was used to compare radiographic and true measurements. RESULTS: With use of 2-D CT, the glenoid index and defect length measurements had the least percentage error (-4.13% and 7.68%, respectively); agreement was very good (ICC, .81) for defect length only. With use of 3-D CT, defect length (0.29%) and the Pico(1) method (4.93%) had the least percentage error. Agreement was very good for all linear indicators of bone loss (range, .85-.90) and for the ratio linear and Pico surface area methods used to quantify bone loss (range, .84-.98). Overall, 3-D CT results demonstrated better agreement and accuracy compared to 2-D CT. CONCLUSION: None of the methods assessed in this study using 2-D CT was found to be valid, and therefore, 2-D CT is not recommended for these methods. However, the length of glenoid defects can be reliably and accurately measured on 3-D CT. The Pico and ratio techniques are most reliable; however, the Pico(1) method accurately quantifies glenoid bone loss in both the anterior and anteroinferior locations. Future work is required to implement valid imaging techniques of glenoid bone loss into clinical practice. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This is one of the only studies to date that has investigated both the reliability and accuracy of multiple indicators and quantification methods that evaluate glenoid bone loss in anterior glenohumeral instability. These data are critical to ensure valid methods are used for preoperative assessment and to determine when a glenoid bone augmentation procedure is indicated.
BACKGROUND: Glenoid support is critical for stability of the glenohumeral joint. An accepted noninvasive method of quantifying glenoid bone loss does not exist. PURPOSE: To perform independent evaluations of the reliability and accuracy of standard 2-dimensional (2-D) and 3-dimensional (3-D) computed tomography (CT) measurements of glenoid bone deficiency. STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive laboratory study. METHODS: Two sawbone models were used; one served as a model for 2 anterior glenoid defects and the other for 2 anteroinferior defects. For each scapular model, predefect and defect data were collected for a total of 6 data sets. Each sample underwent 3-D laser scanning followed by CT scanning. Six physicians measured linear indicators of bone loss (defect length and width-to-length ratio) on both 2-D and 3-D CT and quantified bone loss using the glenoid index method on 2-D CT and using the glenoid index, ratio, and Pico methods on 3-D CT. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to assess agreement, and percentage error was used to compare radiographic and true measurements. RESULTS: With use of 2-D CT, the glenoid index and defect length measurements had the least percentage error (-4.13% and 7.68%, respectively); agreement was very good (ICC, .81) for defect length only. With use of 3-D CT, defect length (0.29%) and the Pico(1) method (4.93%) had the least percentage error. Agreement was very good for all linear indicators of bone loss (range, .85-.90) and for the ratio linear and Pico surface area methods used to quantify bone loss (range, .84-.98). Overall, 3-D CT results demonstrated better agreement and accuracy compared to 2-D CT. CONCLUSION: None of the methods assessed in this study using 2-D CT was found to be valid, and therefore, 2-D CT is not recommended for these methods. However, the length of glenoid defects can be reliably and accurately measured on 3-D CT. The Pico and ratio techniques are most reliable; however, the Pico(1) method accurately quantifies glenoid bone loss in both the anterior and anteroinferior locations. Future work is required to implement valid imaging techniques of glenoid bone loss into clinical practice. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This is one of the only studies to date that has investigated both the reliability and accuracy of multiple indicators and quantification methods that evaluate glenoid bone loss in anterior glenohumeral instability. These data are critical to ensure valid methods are used for preoperative assessment and to determine when a glenoid bone augmentation procedure is indicated.
Authors: Jeroen E Markenstein; Kjell C C J Jaspars; Victor P M van der Hulst; W Jaap Willems Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2014-01-18 Impact factor: 2.199