Antonio Arenas-Miquelez1, Orestis Karargyris2, Petra L Graham3, Ralph Hertel4,5. 1. Shoulder and Elbow, Orthopaedics, Lindenhofspital, Bremgartenstrasse 117, 3001, Bern, Switzerland. antarenas1987@gmail.com. 2. Henry Dunant Hospital, Athens, Greece. 3. School of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 4. Shoulder and Elbow, Orthopaedics, Lindenhofspital, Bremgartenstrasse 117, 3001, Bern, Switzerland. 5. Campus Stiftung Lindenhof Bern, Swiss Institute for Translational and Entrepreneurial Medicine, Bern, Switzerland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The majority of methods for measuring glenoid bone loss in shoulder instability use the best-fit circle following the inferior glenoid rim. However, there is no precise method on how to draw this circle, particularly in case of a missing rim segment. Defining the radius is a source of substantial error. It was hypothesized that there is a relationship between the best-fit inferior circle (inner circle), defined by Sugaya, and the circle tangent to the supra- and infra-glenoid tubercles (outer circle), defined by Itoi, thus allowing a more consistent appreciation of the paleo-glenoid. METHODS: Ninety-five normal dry scapulae were examined. The specimens were digitally photographed obtaining perpendicular images of the glenoid cavity. Using HOROS® imaging software, a best-fit inferior circle (inner circle) and a second circle fitting the most inferior and superior points of the glenoid (outer circle) were drawn by two investigators. The diameters and areas of the circles were recorded. Two-way random-effects intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) were used to measure intra- and inter-observer agreement. A Bayesian measurement-error regression model was used to determine the relationship between outer and inner circle measurements. RESULTS: The mean glenoid height was 35.1 mm and the glenoid width 25.6 mm. The mean diameter of the outer circle was 35.7 ± 4.2 mm and the mean diameter of the inner circle was 26.8 ± 3.2 mm. ICC showed excellent inter- and intra-observer agreement for both the outer circle diameter (ICC ≥ 0.95) and inner circle diameter (ICC ≥ 0.93). The two diameters demonstrated a very strong significant Pearson correlation (0.92, p < 0.001) and the regression showed excellent model fit R2 = 0.87. The areas of the two circles were also highly and significantly correlated (r = 0.94; p < 0.001). The ratio of inner circle to outer diameters was 0.74. CONCLUSION: There is a strong correlation between the inner and outer glenoid circle diameters. This study sets the base for the use the combined outer and inner circle and its ratio to better appreciate the paleo-glenoid morphology and thus obtain a more reliable bone loss estimation. Application of this method aids in a more reliable estimation bone loss with potential benefit in surgical decision-making.
PURPOSE: The majority of methods for measuring glenoid bone loss in shoulder instability use the best-fit circle following the inferior glenoid rim. However, there is no precise method on how to draw this circle, particularly in case of a missing rim segment. Defining the radius is a source of substantial error. It was hypothesized that there is a relationship between the best-fit inferior circle (inner circle), defined by Sugaya, and the circle tangent to the supra- and infra-glenoid tubercles (outer circle), defined by Itoi, thus allowing a more consistent appreciation of the paleo-glenoid. METHODS: Ninety-five normal dry scapulae were examined. The specimens were digitally photographed obtaining perpendicular images of the glenoid cavity. Using HOROS® imaging software, a best-fit inferior circle (inner circle) and a second circle fitting the most inferior and superior points of the glenoid (outer circle) were drawn by two investigators. The diameters and areas of the circles were recorded. Two-way random-effects intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) were used to measure intra- and inter-observer agreement. A Bayesian measurement-error regression model was used to determine the relationship between outer and inner circle measurements. RESULTS: The mean glenoid height was 35.1 mm and the glenoid width 25.6 mm. The mean diameter of the outer circle was 35.7 ± 4.2 mm and the mean diameter of the inner circle was 26.8 ± 3.2 mm. ICC showed excellent inter- and intra-observer agreement for both the outer circle diameter (ICC ≥ 0.95) and inner circle diameter (ICC ≥ 0.93). The two diameters demonstrated a very strong significant Pearson correlation (0.92, p < 0.001) and the regression showed excellent model fit R2 = 0.87. The areas of the two circles were also highly and significantly correlated (r = 0.94; p < 0.001). The ratio of inner circle to outer diameters was 0.74. CONCLUSION: There is a strong correlation between the inner and outer glenoid circle diameters. This study sets the base for the use the combined outer and inner circle and its ratio to better appreciate the paleo-glenoid morphology and thus obtain a more reliable bone loss estimation. Application of this method aids in a more reliable estimation bone loss with potential benefit in surgical decision-making.
Authors: Travis J Dekker; Liam A Peebles; Andrew S Bernhardson; Petar Golijanin; Giovanni Di Giacomo; Thomas R Hackett; Matthew T Provencher Journal: Arthroscopy Date: 2020-12-17 Impact factor: 4.772