Peter N Chalmers1, Thomas Suter2, Matthijs Jacxsens3, Yue Zhang4, Chong Zhang4, Robert Z Tashjian1, Heath B Henninger1. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kantonsspital Baselland, Liestal, Switzerland. 3. Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Kantonsspital St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland. 4. Division of Epidemiology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Abstract
Introduction: The purposes of this study were to determine (1) whether glenoid inclination (GI) could be accurately measured on plain radiographs as compared to a gold-standard 3-dimensional (3D) measure and (2) whether GI could be reliably measured on plain radiographs. Materials and Methods: Digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRRs) were made from 3D computed tomography reconstructions of 68 normal cadaver scapulae. DRRs were made in a variety of viewing angles. Inclination was measured on these DRRs. These measurements were also made using a gold-standard 3D method. Measurements were made by 2 orthopedic surgeons and 1 surgeon twice, to calculate interrater and intrarater intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Results: The gold-standard 3D β was 83 ± 5° (72°-98°). On neutral plain radiographs, the mean ± standard deviation 2D β angle was 80 ± 6° (range, 66°-99°). With regard to accuracy, the 2D β angle was significantly different from the 3D β angle, with the 2D β underestimating the 3D β by 5° (95% confidence intervals -1 to 12). With regard to reliability, interrater ICCs for 2D β with a neutral viewing angle was 0.79. Two-dimensional β varied widely with viewing angle from 0.24 to 0.88. Interrater ICCs for the 3D method was 0.83 (0.60-0.92). Intrarater ICCs for all 3 techniques were high (>0.91). Conclusions: Two-dimensional radiographic GI measurement is not accurate, as it underestimates the 3D value by an average of 5° when compared to the gold-standard 3D measurement. GI 2D measurement reliability varies with viewing angle on plain radiographs and thus to accurately and reliably measure inclination 3D imaging is necessary.
Introduction: The purposes of this study were to determine (1) whether glenoid inclination (GI) could be accurately measured on plain radiographs as compared to a gold-standard 3-dimensional (3D) measure and (2) whether GI could be reliably measured on plain radiographs. Materials and Methods: Digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRRs) were made from 3D computed tomography reconstructions of 68 normal cadaver scapulae. DRRs were made in a variety of viewing angles. Inclination was measured on these DRRs. These measurements were also made using a gold-standard 3D method. Measurements were made by 2 orthopedic surgeons and 1 surgeon twice, to calculate interrater and intrarater intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Results: The gold-standard 3D β was 83 ± 5° (72°-98°). On neutral plain radiographs, the mean ± standard deviation 2D β angle was 80 ± 6° (range, 66°-99°). With regard to accuracy, the 2D β angle was significantly different from the 3D β angle, with the 2D β underestimating the 3D β by 5° (95% confidence intervals -1 to 12). With regard to reliability, interrater ICCs for 2D β with a neutral viewing angle was 0.79. Two-dimensional β varied widely with viewing angle from 0.24 to 0.88. Interrater ICCs for the 3D method was 0.83 (0.60-0.92). Intrarater ICCs for all 3 techniques were high (>0.91). Conclusions: Two-dimensional radiographic GI measurement is not accurate, as it underestimates the 3D value by an average of 5° when compared to the gold-standard 3D measurement. GI 2D measurement reliability varies with viewing angle on plain radiographs and thus to accurately and reliably measure inclination 3D imaging is necessary.
Authors: Richard E Hughes; Cari R Bryant; Janette M Hall; Jason Wening; Laura J Huston; John E Kuhn; James E Carpenter; Ralph B Blasier Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Ulrich J Spiegl; Marilee P Horan; Sean W Smith; Charles P Ho; Peter J Millett Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2015-03-29 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Chris D Bryce; Andrew C Davison; Gregory S Lewis; Li Wang; Donald J Flemming; April D Armstrong Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: B K Moor; M Röthlisberger; D A Müller; M A Zumstein; S Bouaicha; M Ehlinger; C Gerber Journal: Orthop Traumatol Surg Res Date: 2014-07-08 Impact factor: 2.256
Authors: Hema J Sulkar; Tyler W Knighton; Linda Amoafo; Klevis Aliaj; Christopher W Kolz; Yue Zhang; Tucker Hermans; Heath B Henninger Journal: J Biomech Eng Date: 2022-05-01 Impact factor: 2.097