Literature DB >> 24581417

Comparison of two different measurement methods to determine glenoid bone defects: area or width?

Egemen Altan1, Mehmet Ugur Ozbaydar2, Murat Tonbul3, Levent Yalcin4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This study compared two different techniques that have been used to measure the glenoids of patients with recurrent anterior shoulder dislocation.
METHODS: We analyzed 36 patients who had received arthroscopic Bankart repair for anterior shoulder instability. Retrospectively, 3-dimensional computed tomography images of both shoulders were available for these patients. Two measurement methods were compared to determine the glenoid defects. One of these techniques is based on linear measurement, previously defined as the glenoid index. The other method is based on surface area measurement. Subsequently, 3 more diameters and the average values obtained from these diameters were compared with the surface measurement method. Pearson correlation coefficient (r) was assessed to determine the relationship.
RESULTS: There was an almost perfect relationship between measurement methods when the defect area was less than 6% of the inferior glenoid circle (r, 0.915; P < .001). This relation decreased and the difference became more pronounced (r, 0.343; P = .657) when the bone loss exceeded 14% of the inferior glenoid circle. The highest correlations with the actual defects were the average values obtained from 4 different diameters (r, 0.964; P < .001) and the 4-o'clock position of the single diameter measurements (r, 0.860; P = .001). In addition, 11 patients had crescent-like defects, demonstrating a relatively low correlation between the measurement methods (r, 0.679; P = .021).
CONCLUSION: Although the best correlation was achieved from average values obtained from different diameter positions, in practical use, we advise a linear measurement to estimate the glenoid bone loss at the 4-o'clock position to achieve a high correlation between the measurement techniques.
Copyright © 2014 Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Board of Trustees. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Glenoid bone loss; Pico method; arthroscopy; glenoid index; instability; shoulder

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24581417     DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2013.11.029

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg        ISSN: 1058-2746            Impact factor:   3.019


  5 in total

1.  Assessment and Evaluation of Glenoid Bone Loss.

Authors:  Jason T Hamamoto; Timothy Leroux; Jorge Chahla; Sanjeev Bhatia; John D Higgins; Anthony A Romeo; Adam B Yanke; Nikhil N Verma
Journal:  Arthrosc Tech       Date:  2016-08-22

2.  High correlation between inner and outer glenoid circle diameters and its clinical relevance.

Authors:  Antonio Arenas-Miquelez; Orestis Karargyris; Petra L Graham; Ralph Hertel
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2022-07-09       Impact factor: 4.342

3.  MRI Allows Accurate Measurement of Glenoid Bone Loss.

Authors:  Mirco Sgroi; Hashuka Huzurudin; Marius Ludwig; Timo Zippelius; Heiko Reichel; Thomas Kappe
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2022-04-22       Impact factor: 4.755

4.  What can the Radiologist do to Help the Surgeon Manage Shoulder Instability?

Authors:  Nicole Pouliart; Seema Doering; Maryam Shahabpour
Journal:  J Belg Soc Radiol       Date:  2016-11-19       Impact factor: 1.894

5.  Reliability of the measurement of glenoid bone defect in anterior shoulder instability.

Authors:  Yong-Gang Wu; Hai-Long Zhang; Ya-Fei Hao; Chun-Yan Jiang
Journal:  Chin Med J (Engl)       Date:  2019-11-05       Impact factor: 2.628

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.