Comparison of 3-Dimensional Computed Tomography-Based Measurement of Glenoid Bone Loss With Arthroscopic Defect Size Estimation in Patients With Anterior Shoulder Instability

Variability in quantifying the Hill-Sachs lesion: A scoping review

Background

Currently, is there no consensus on a widely accepted measurement technique for calculating the Hill-Sachs lesion (HSL). The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of the techniques and imaging modalities to assess the HSL pre-operatively.

Methods

Four online databases (PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, and COCHRANE) were searched for literature on the various modalities and measurement techniques used for quantifying HSLs, from data inception to 20 November 2021. The Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies tool was used to assess study quality.

Results

Forty-five studies encompassing 3413 patients were included in this review. MRA and MRI showed the highest sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy values. Intrarater and interrater agreement was shown to be the highest amongst MRA. The most common reference tests for measuring the HSL were arthroscopy, radiography, arthro-CT, and surgical techniques.

Conclusion

MRA and MRI are reliable imaging modalities with good test diagnostic properties for assessment of HSLs. There is a wide variety of measurement techniques and imaging modalities for HSL assessment, however a lack of comparative studies exists. Thus, it is not possible to comment on the superiority of one technique over another. Future studies comparing imaging modalities and measurement techniques are needed that incorporate a cost-benefit analysis.

Current Concepts in the Measurement of Glenohumeral Bone Loss

PURPOSE

The extent of glenohumeral bone loss seen in anterior shoulder dislocations plays a major role in guiding surgical management of these patients. The need for accurate and reliable preoperative assessment of bone loss on imaging studies is therefore of paramount importance to orthopedic surgeons. This article will focus on the tools that are available to clinicians for quantifying glenoid bone loss with a focus on emerging trends and research in order to describe current practices.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent evidence supports the use of 3D CT as the most optimal method for quantifying bone loss on the glenoid and humerus. New trends in the use of 3D and ZTE MRI represent exciting alternatives to CT imaging, although they are not widely used and require further investigation. Contemporary thinking surrounding the glenoid track concept and the symbiotic relationship between glenoid and humeral bone loss on shoulder stability has transformed our understanding of these lesions and has inspired a new focus of study for radiologists and orthopedist alike. Although a number of different advanced imaging modalities are utilized to detect and quantify glenohumeral bone loss in practice, the current literature supports 3D CT imaging to provide the most reliable and accurate assessments. The emergence of the glenoid track concept for glenoid and humeral head bone loss has inspired a new area of study for researchers that presents exciting opportunities for the development of a deeper understanding of glenohumeral instability in the future. Ultimately, however, the heterogeneity of literature, which speaks to the diverse practices that exist across the world, limits any firm conclusions from being drawn.

Glenoid bone loss in anterior shoulder dislocation: a multicentric study to assess the most reliable imaging method

PURPOSE

The aim of this multicentric study was to assess which imaging method has the best inter-reader agreement for glenoid bone loss quantification in anterior shoulder instability. A further aim was to calculate the inter-method agreement comparing bilateral CT with unilateral CT and MR arthrography (MRA) with CT measurements. Finally, calculations were carried out to find the least time-consuming method.

METHOD

A retrospective evaluation was performed by 9 readers (or pairs of readers) on a consecutive series of 110 patients with MRA and bilateral shoulder CT. Each reader was asked to calculate the glenoid bone loss of all patients using the following methods: best fit circle area on both MRA and CT images, maximum transverse glenoid width on MRA and CT, CT PICO technique, ratio of the maximum glenoid width to height on MRA and CT, and length of flattening of the anterior glenoid curvature on MRA and CT. Using Pearson's correlation coefficient (PCC), the following agreement values were calculated: the inter-reader for each method, the inter-method for MRA with CT quantifications and the inter-method for CT best-fit circle area and CT PICO. Statistical analysis was carried out to compare the time employed by the readers for each method.

RESULTS

Inter-reader agreement PCC mean values were the following: 0.70 for MRA and 0.77 for CT using best fit circle diameter, 0.68 for MRA and 0.72 for CT using best fit circle area, 0.75 for CT PICO, 0.64 for MRA and 0.62 for CT anterior straight line and 0.49 for MRA and 0.43 for CT using length-to-width ratio. CT-MRA inter-modality PCC mean values were 0.9 for best fit circle diameter, 0.9 for best fit circle area, 0.62 for anterior straight line and 0.94 for length-to-width methods. PCC mean value comparing unilateral CT with PICO CT methods was 0.8. MRA best fit circle area method was significantly faster than the same method performed on CT (p = 0.031), while no significant difference was seen between CT and MRA for remaining measurements.

CONCLUSIONS

CT PICO is the most reliable imaging method, but both CT and MRA can be reliably used to assess glenoid bone loss. Best fit circle area CT and MRA methods are valuable alternative measurement techniques.

MRI Allows Accurate Measurement of Glenoid Bone Loss

BACKGROUND

Bony Bankart lesions larger than a certain size can lead to a high redislocation rate, despite treatment with Bankart repair. Detection and measurement of glenoid bone loss play key roles in selecting the appropriate surgical therapy in patients with shoulder instability. There is controversy about which diagnostic modalities, using different measurement methods, provide the best diagnostic validity.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) What are the diagnostic accuracies of true AP radiographs, West Point (WP) view radiographs, MRI, and CT to detect glenoid bone loss? (2) Are there differences in the measurements of glenoid bone loss on MRI and CT? (3) What are the intrarater and interrater reliabilities of CT and MRI to measure glenoid bone loss?

METHODS

Between August 2012 and February 2017, we treated 80 patients for anterior shoulder instability. Of those, we considered patients with available preoperative true AP radiographs, WP radiographs, CT images, and MR images of the affected shoulder as potentially eligible. Based on that, 63% (50 of 80) of patients were eligible for analysis; 31% (25 of 80) were excluded because not all planes or slices (such as sagittal, axial, or frontal) of each diagnostic imaging modalities were available and 7% (5 of 80) because of the insufficient quality of diagnostic images (for example, setting of the layers did not allow adequate en face view of the glenoid). Preoperative true AP radiographs, WP radiographs, CT images and MR images of the affected shoulders were retrospectively assessed for the presence of glenoid bone loss by two blinded observers at a median (range) 25 months (12 to 66) postoperatively. To evaluate sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, accuracy, diagnostic odds ratio, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and area under the curve (AUC), we compared the detection of glenoid bone loss at follow-up achieved with the aforementioned imaging modalities with intraoperative arthroscopic detection. In all patients with glenoid bone loss, two blinded observers measured the size of the glenoid bone loss on preoperative CT and MR images using six measuring techniques: depth and length of the glenoid bone loss, Bigliani classification, best-fit circle width loss method, AP distance method, surface area method, and Gerber X ratio. Subsequently, the sizes of the glenoid bone loss determined using CT and MRI were compared. To estimate intraobserver and interobserver reliability, measurements were performed in a blinded fashion by two observers. Their level of experience was equivalent to that of orthopaedic residents, and they completed a training protocol before the measurements.

RESULTS

For the ability to accurately diagnose Bankart lesions, the AUC (accuracy of a diagnostic test; the closer to 1.0, the more accurate the test) was good for MRI (0.83 [95% confidence interval 0.70 to 0.94]; p < 0.01), fair for CT (0.79 [95% CI 0.66 to 0.92]; p < 0.01), poor for WP radiographs (0.69 [95% CI 0.54 to 0.85]; p = 0.02) and failed for true AP radiographs (0.55 [95% CI 0.39 to 0.72]; p = 0.69). In paired comparisons, there were no differences between CT and MRI regarding (median [range]) lesion width (2.33 mm [0.35 to 4.53] versus 2.26 mm [0.90 to 3.47], p = 0.71) and depth (0.42 mm [0.80 to 1.39] versus 0.40 mm [0.06 to 1.17]; p = 0.54), and there were no differences concerning the other measurement methods: best-fit circle width loss method (15.02% [2.48% to 41.59%] versus 13.38% [2.00% to 36.34%]; p = 0.66), AP distances method (15.48% [1.44% to 42.01%] versus 12.88% [1.43% to 36.34%]; p = 0.63), surface area method (14.01% [0.87% to 38.25] versus 11.72% [2.45% to 37.97%]; p = 0.68), and Gerber X ratio (0.75 [0.13 to 1.47] versus 0.76 [0.27 to 1.13]; p = 0.41). Except for the moderate interrater reliability of the Bigliani classification using CT (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.599 [95% CI 0.246 to 0.834]; p = 0.03) and acceptable interrater reliability of the Gerber X ratio using CT (0.775 [95% CI 0.542 to 0.899]; p < 0.01), all other measurement methods had good or excellent intrarater and interrater reliabilities on MRI and CT.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study show that CT and MRI can accurately detect glenoid bone loss, whereas WP radiographs can only recognize them poorly, and true AP radiographs do not provide any adequate diagnostic accuracy. In addition, when measuring glenoid bone loss, MRI images of the analyzed measurement methods yielded sizes that were no different from CT measurements. Finally, the use of MRI images to measure Bankart bone lesions gave good-to-excellent reliability in the present study, which was not inferior to CT findings. Considering the advantages including lower radiation exposure and the ability to assess the condition of the labrum using MRI, we believe MRI can help surgeons avoid ordering additional CT imaging in clinical practice for the diagnosis of anterior shoulder instability in patients with glenoid bone loss. Future studies should investigate the reproducibility of our results with a larger number of patients, using other measurement methods that include examination of the opposite side or with three-dimensional reconstructions.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I diagnostic study.

Glenoid Bone Loss Determination: Validity and Reliability of the Constellation Technique Versus the Sagittal Best Fit Circle Technique

OBJECTIVE

To propose a new method for glenoid bone loss measurement, the constellation technique (CST); determine its reliability and accuracy; and compare the validity of CST with that of the conventional technique (CVT) and standard measurements for ratio calculation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixty shoulders with intact glenoids and no glenohumeral instability and arthritis underwent CT scans. Simulated osteotomies were conducted on the 3D models of glenoids at two cutting locations, expressed as clock face times (2:30-4:20; 1:30-5:00). Two experienced surgeons compared three methods for glenoid bone loss measurement; CVT (best-fit circle), CST ('5S' steps), and standard measurement. Eight undergraduates remeasured five randomly chosen shoulders with moderate to severe bone loss. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated for raters.

RESULTS

With a defect range between 2:30 and 4:20, all 60 glenoids demonstrated minimal bone loss (< 15%); while between 1:30 and 5:00, 42 shoulders were with moderate bone loss (15-20%), and 18 shoulders with severe bone loss (≥ 20%). For experienced raters, no significant differences were noted between protocos for all categories of bone loss (p ≥ 0.051), with good inter- and intraobserver reliability indicated by ICC. For novice raters, post hoc Tukey analysis found that CST was more accurate in one patient with a standard mean bone loss of 23.2% ± 1.9% compared with CVT.

CONCLUSION

The CST turned the key step of glenoid defect evaluation from deciding an en face view to determining the glenoid inferior rim. The protocol is simple, accurate, and reproducible, especially for novice raters.

Reporting of glenoid bone loss measurement in clinical studies and the need for standardization : a systematic review

AIMS

The amount of glenoid bone loss is an important factor in deciding between soft-tissue and bony reconstruction when managing anterior shoulder instability. Accurate and reproducible measurement of glenoid bone loss is therefore vital in evaluation of shoulder instability and recommending specific treatment. The aim of this systematic review is to identify the range methods and measurement techniques employed in clinical studies treating glenoid bone loss.

METHODS

A systematic review of the PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase databases was undertaken to cover a ten-year period from February 2011 to February 2021. We identified clinical studies that incorporated bone loss assessment in the methodology as part of the decision-making in the management of patients with anterior shoulder instability. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) were used.

RESULTS

A total of 5,430 articles were identified from the initial search, of which 82 studies met the final inclusion criteria. A variety of imaging methods were used: three studies did not specify which modality was used, and a further 13 used CT or MRI interchangeably. There was considerable heterogeneity among the studies that specified the technique used to quantify glenoid bone loss. A large proportion of the studies did not specify the technique used.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review has identified significant heterogeneity in both the imaging modality and method used to measure glenoid bone loss. The recommendation is that as a minimum for publication, authors should be required to reference the specific measurement technique used. Without this simple standardization, it is impossible to determine whether any published paper should influence clinical practice or should be dismissed. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(1):12-18.

Mathematical modeling of glenoid bone loss demonstrate differences in calculations that May affect surgical decision making

Objective

Two glenoid bone loss calculations are compared across a range of anatomic glenoid sizes.

Methods

20 cadaveric paired glenoid diameters were measured to create glenoid models with bone loss calculated in 1 mm linear increments up to 50% bone loss comparing the linear measurement percentage (LMP) to the circle line method (CLM) gold standard.

Results

The LMP overestimates glenoid bone loss at every potential 1 mm increment across each glenoid model until bone loss reaches 50%.

Conclusion

The widely-used LMP method overestimates bone loss compared to a gold standard potentially misguiding surgeons towards bony reconstruction in shoulder instability during preoperative planning.

Accuracy of Currently Available Methods in Quantifying Anterior Glenoid Bone Loss: Controversy Regarding Gold Standard-A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To determine the accuracy of glenoid bone loss-measuring methods and assess the influence of the imaging modality on the accuracy of the measurement methods.

METHODS

A literature search was performed in the PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, and Cochrane databases from 1994 to June 11, 2019. The guidelines and algorithm of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) were used. Included for analysis were articles reporting the accuracy of glenoid bone loss-measuring methods in patients with anterior shoulder instability by comparing an index test and a reference test. Furthermore, articles were included if anterior glenoid bone loss was quantified using a ruler during arthroscopy or by measurements on plain radiograph(s), computed tomography (CT) images, or magnetic resonance images in living humans. The risk of bias was determined using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies were included, showing 17 different methods. Three studies reported on the accuracy of methods performed on 3-dimensional CT. Two studies determined the accuracy of glenoid bone loss-measuring methods performed on radiography by comparing them with methods performed on 3-dimensional CT. Six studies determined the accuracy of methods performed using imaging modalities with an arthroscopic method as the reference. Eight studies reported on the influence of the imaging modality on the accuracy of the methods. There was no consensus regarding the gold standard. Because of the heterogeneity of the data, a quantitative analysis was not feasible.

CONCLUSIONS

Consensus regarding the gold standard in measuring glenoid bone loss is lacking. The use of heterogeneous data and varying methods contributes to differences in the gold standard, and accuracy therefore cannot be determined.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, systematic review of Level II, III, and IV studies.

Use of the Contralateral Glenoid for Calculation of Glenoid Bone Loss: A Cadaveric Anthropometric Study

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to determine if there are significant side-to-side anthropometric differences between paired glenoids.

METHODS

Forty-six matched-pair cadaver glenoids were harvested, and their glenoid heights (GHs) and glenoid widths (GWs) were measured with digital calipers. The glenoid surface area was calculated using the standard assumption that the inferior two-thirds of the glenoid is a perfect circle.

RESULTS

There was a statistically significant difference between matched-pair GHs of 0.96 ± 3.07 mm (P = .020) and GWs of 0.46 ± 1.64 mm (P = .033). There was a significant difference of glenoid cavity area of 20.30 ± 81.53 mm2 (P = .044), or a difference of ∼3%. A total of 4 of 46 pairs of glenoids (8.6%) showed a difference in width >3 mm.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates the fallacy of use of the contralateral glenoid in measuring glenoid bone loss. Although many paired samples exhibited similar side-to-side glenoid measurements, the number of cadaveric pairs that showed differences of >3 mm was substantial. Caution should be taken when using calculation methods that include this assumption for surgical decision making, as surface area, GW, and GH were all shown to have statistically significant side-to-side differences in their measurements.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Many methods exist for measuring glenoid bone loss after anterior shoulder dislocation, but some of the current methods may be inaccurate and lead to unreliable estimations.

Comparison of best-fit circle versus contralateral comparison methods to quantify glenoid bone defect

BACKGROUND

Several measurement techniques have been reported to quantify glenoid bone defect in patients with anterior shoulder instability. Among them, the method that uses a best-fit circle and another that uses the contralateral glenoid as a control are most commonly used. However, to our knowledge, no study has been reported that compared the reliability of these methods. The purpose of this study, therefore, was to determine which of these methods has higher reproducibility.

METHOD

In this study, 3-dimensional computed tomography data from 94 patients (mean age 29 years) with unilateral anterior shoulder instability were used. Three examiners measured the glenoid bone defect of each patient 3 times using 2 techniques: the best-fit circle method and the contralateral comparison method. Intra- and interobserver reliabilities were measured using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).

RESULTS

The intraobserver reliability was found to be 0.91 for the best-fit circle method and 0.98 for the contralateral comparison method. The interobserver reliability was 0.77 for the best-fit circle method and 0.88 for the contralateral method. The percentage of glenoid defect was 11.5% when using the best-fit circle and 10.7% with the contralateral method.

CONCLUSION

The contralateral comparison method was more reliable than the best-fit circle method for quantifying the amount of glenoid bone loss.

Does Bone Loss Imaging Modality, Measurement Methodology, and Interobserver Reliability Alter Treatment in Glenohumeral Instability?

PURPOSE

To determine, in the context of measuring bone loss in shoulder instability, whether measurement differences between magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT), linear-based and area-based methods, and observers altered the proposed treatment when a standardized algorithm was applied.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, comparative imaging study of preoperative patients with anterior shoulder instability with both an MRI and CT scan within 1 year of one another. On parasagittal images reoriented en face to the glenoid, 2 attending orthopaedic surgeons measured glenoid width, glenoid area, glenoid defect width, and glenoid defect area. On axial images maximal Hill-Sachs width was measured. From these, linear percent glenoid bone loss (%GBL) and area %GBL were calculated, and on-versus off-track was determined. With these results, a recommended treatment was determined by applying a standardized algorithm, in which the Latarjet procedure was selected for %GBL >20%, arthroscopic labral repair and remplissage for off-track lesions with %GBL <20%, and arthroscopic labral repair on-track shoulders with %GBL <20%.

RESULTS

In total, 53 patients with mean ± standard deviation 45 ± 83 days between scans were include with a CT linear %GBL of 23.5 ± 9.6% (range 0%-47%). CT lead to larger measurements of %GBL than MRI (linear P = .008, area P = .003), and fewer shoulders being considered on-track (33.0% vs 40.5%), which would alter treatment in 25% to 34%. Linear measurements produced larger values for %GBL (CT, P < .001; MRI, P < .001), which would alter treatment in 25%. For %GBL, inter-rater reliability was good, with intraclass correlation coefficients varying from 0.727 to 0.832 and Kappa varying from 0.57 to 0.62, but these inter-rater differences would alter treatment in 31%.

CONCLUSIONS

The significant differences in bone loss measurement between imaging modality, measurement method, and observers may lead to differences in treatment in up to 34% of cases. Linear CT measurements resulted in the most aggressive treatment recommendations.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Retrospective Comparative Study: Diagnostic, Level III.

Editorial Commentary: Can Orthopaedic Surgeons Agree on Choice of Procedure for Anterior Shoulder Instability Based on Risk Factors? Personal and Training Biases Confound Our Surgical Decision Making

Diagnosing and treating anterior shoulder instability can be a challenging clinical problem. Although operative management of shoulder instability has been reported to result in good to excellent functional outcomes, there is still controversy regarding the timing of surgery, how to treat first-time dislocations, and which surgical procedures to use. Patient-specific factors including age, sex, activity level, types of sport, and other comorbidities will influence treatment. In addition, the unique pathology in the shoulder, including presence and degree of bone loss, and concomitant soft tissue pathology will influence the choice of procedures for anterior stabilization. Surgeon-specific factors such as surgeon's preference, which procedure the surgeon is comfortable with, and training and experience are also important. Finally, the financial burden of the procedure cannot be overlooked. With so many factors playing a role in a surgeon's treatment algorithm, a thorough preoperative assessment is important in guiding decision making. Whether preoperative consideration of the risk factors can guide orthopaedic surgeons to choose the correct procedure and eventually be translated into improved clinical outcomes is still debatable. Alongside careful analysis of the patient's relevant history, the surgeon must also deal with development of new techniques, new implants, and economic factors.

[Current concepts of diagnostic techniques and measurement methods for bone defect in patient with anterior shoulder instability]

Objective

To summarize the diagnosis and measurement methods of bone defect in anterior shoulder instability (glenoid bone defect and Hill-Sachs lesion).

Methods

The related literature on the diagnosis and measurement of the bone defect in anterior shoulder instability was reviewed and summarized.

Results

The commonly used techniques for the diagnosis of anterior glenoid bone defect and Hill-Sachs lesion of humeral head include X-ray, CT, MRI, arthroscopy, arthrography. The methods for measuring the degree of anterior glenoid bone defect include Griffith method, glenoid index method, Pico method, and best-fit circle method. The indexes for measuring the Hill-Sachs lesion include the length, width, depth, and volume. X-ray is mainly used for primary screening. Best-fit circle method on three-dimensional (3D) CT reconstruction is commonly used to measure the glenoid bone defect currently. Glenoid track theory on 3D CT reconstruction is popular in recent years. Reliability of measuring the glenoid bone defect and Hill-Sachs lesion with MRI and arthroscopy is still debatable. Arthrography is more and more used in the diagnosis of shoulder joint instability of bone defect and concomitant soft tissue injury.

Conclusion

How to improve the accuracy of evaluating glenoid bone defect and Hill-Sachs lesion before surgery still need further study.

Hill-Sachs Lesion Classification by the Glenoid Track Paradigm in Shoulder Instability: Poor Agreement Between 3-Dimensional Computed Tomographic and Arthroscopic Methods

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to determine the amount of agreement between preoperative 3-dimensional computed tomographic (3D-CT) and intraoperative arthroscopic classification of Hill-Sachs lesions (HSLs) according to the glenoid track (GT) paradigm.

METHODS

Records for patients treated surgically for anterior shoulder instability from a single surgeon's practice from August 2013 until March 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. Inclusion criteria were presence of an HSL, < 25% glenoid bone loss, bilateral 3D-CT, and arthroscopically recorded bone loss measurements. Records for patients with chronic dislocations or prior operations were excluded. Calculations by 3D-CT and arthroscopy were performed as follows: Hill-Sachs interval (HSI) was the distance from rotator cuff insertion to medial edge of the HSL; GT was 83% of the normal glenoid width minus any glenoid defect; on-track was HSI less than GT; off-track was HSI greater than GT.

RESULTS

Sixteen shoulders with HSL status determined as on- or off-track demonstrated agreement between the 2 methods in 10 of 16 cases (63%, Cohen's κ = 0.16). All 6 cases with disagreement were calculated as on-track by 3D-CT and off-track by arthroscopic measurement. The GT was larger as determined by 3D-CT measurement (22 ± 1 mm [21-24]) compared with arthroscopy (18 ± 1 mm [17-20], P = .002).

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative 3D-CT showed slight agreement compared with intraoperative arthroscopic measurements in classifying HSL as on-track versus off-track in the GT paradigm; larger GT size by 3D-CT versus arthroscopy accounted for all discrepancies. Determination of off-track status based on preoperative 3D-CT versus determination with the arthroscopic method would result in fewer HSLs treated with remplissage if the GT treatment paradigm were followed. Surgeons using the GT paradigm to determine treatment of HSL by remplissage should recognize the potential for discordance between arthroscopic and radiographic measurements.

Imaging Quantification of Glenoid Bone Loss in Patients With Glenohumeral Instability: A Systematic Review

To listen to the podcast associated with this article, please select one of the following: iTunes, Google Play, or direct download. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study is to determine the most accurate imaging techniques to measure glenoid bone loss in anterior glenohumeral instability through a systematic review of existing literature. MATERIALS AND METHODS. We performed a comprehensive literature search of five databases for original research measuring glenoid bone loss at radiography, CT, or MRI, using prospective or retrospective cohort, case-control, or cadaveric study designs up to January 2018. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool aided qualitative assessment of the methods. Data extraction included results, index test interobserver agreement, and accuracy analysis. RESULTS. Twenty-seven studies (evaluating 1425 shoulders) met inclusion criteria after full-text review by two independent readers. Glenoid bone loss was assessed, comparing several index tests to nonimaging (n = 18 studies) and imaging (n = 11) reference standards. Compared with arthroscopic or cadaveric measurements, 2D CT was accurate in six of seven studies (86%), 3D CT was accurate in eight of 10 studies (80%), 2D MRI was accurate in five of seven studies (71%), 3D MRI was accurate in four of four studies (100%), and radiographs were accurate in zero of four studies (0%). Best-fit circle methods (glenoid width or Pico surface area) were the most common and both were accurate (86-90% and 75-100%, respectively) using CT and MRI. Studies had good external validity (78%). Most risk for bias arose from patient selection and reference standards. Only two studies reported sensitivity and specificity, both comparing CT to arthroscopy using different bone loss thresholds (20% and 25%). CONCLUSION. CT and MRI (2D or 3D) accurately measure glenoid bone loss in anterior shoulder instability, but radiographs do not. Best-fit circle measurement techniques are reliable and accurate. Current literature about glenoid bone loss is heterogeneous, and future studies should focus on diagnosis of clinically relevant glenoid bone loss.

The Influence of Bone Loss on Glenoid Version Measurement: A Computer-Modeled Cadaveric Analysis

PURPOSE

To characterize how increasing computed tomography (CT)-quantified glenoid bone loss influences measured version.

METHODS

Six embalmed cadaveric shoulders were used for this study. Glenoid bone defects were computer modeled in cadaveric shoulders; CT images were obtained and segmented using OsiriX software, creating 3-dimensional en face glenoids. Glenoid defects were made on CT images of intact glenoids superimposed with a glenoid clock face viewed en face to simulate anterior and posterior bone loss. Bony defects in various positions comprising 3%, 9.5%, and 19.5% were created posteriorly. Best-fit circles were superimposed to represent 10% and 25% defects anteriorly. Version was measured using the Friedman method.

RESULTS

The average glenoid version measured 4° of retroversion, 2° after 10% anterior bone loss, and neutral version in the 25% bone loss group. Version was significantly altered when we compared intact glenoids versus 10% and 25% anterior glenoid bone loss (P < .001). Increasing from 10% to 25% bone loss showed a significant difference in measured version (P = .025). Posterior defects from the 6:30 to 8:30 clock-face position averaged 4.6° of retroversion; from the 6:30 to 9:30 clock-face position, 6.2° of retroversion; and from the 6:30 to 10:30 clock-face position, 8.7° of retroversion. When comparing glenoid defects at the 6:30 to 8:30 clock-face position with those involving the 6:30 to 9:30 and 6:30 to 10:30 clock-face positions (P < .001), a 1° correction may be used for every 5% of bone loss to account for version changes seen with bone loss.

CONCLUSIONS

In this cadaveric analysis, glenoid version was altered in the setting of increasing posterior and anterior bone loss. A correction factor may be considered to account for this. When comparing glenoid defects at the 6:30 to 8:30 clock-face position with those involving the 6:30 to 9:30 and 6:30 to 10:30 clock-face positions (P < .001), a 1° correction may be used for every 5% of bone loss to account for version changes seen with bone loss.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This cadaveric study shows that glenoid bone loss alters glenoid version, as measured by CT, in a meaningful way. This information is important in managing anterior and posterior shoulder instability, and correction of measured version should be considered in this setting to provide an accurate and comprehensive evaluation.

A Clinical Comparison of Linear- and Surface Area-Based Methods of Measuring Glenoid Bone Loss

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to determine whether linear-based measurement significantly overestimates glenoid bone loss in comparison with surface area-based measurement in patients with recurrent anterior shoulder instability and glenoid bone loss.

HYPOTHESIS

Linear-based measurement will significantly overestimate glenoid bone loss in comparison with surface area-based measurement in patients with anterior shoulder instability and glenoid bone loss.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Thirty patients with anterior shoulder instability underwent preoperative bilateral shoulder computed tomography (CT) scans. Three-dimensional CT (3D-CT) reconstruction with humeral head subtraction was performed to obtain an en face view of the 3D-CT glenoid. Glenoid bone loss was measured with the surface area and linear methods of measurement. Statistical analysis was performed with a paired 2-tailed t test.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight patients (5 female and 23 male; mean age, 25.1 years; age range, 15-58 years) were included in the study; 17 patients underwent a glenoid augmentation procedure, and 11 underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair. The mean percentage glenoid bone loss calculated with the surface area and linear methods was 12.8% ± 8.0% and 17.5% ± 9.7% ( P < .0001), respectively. For the 17 patients who underwent glenoid augmentation, mean percentage bone loss with the surface area and linear methods was 16.6% ± 7.9% and 23.0% ± 8.0% ( P < .0001), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Linear measurement of glenoid bone loss significantly overestimates bone loss compared with surface area measurement in patients with anterior glenoid bony defects. These results indicate that these different methods cannot be used interchangeably and cannot be used with the same critical thresholds for glenoid bone loss.

Accuracy and Reliability of a Simple Calculation for Measuring Glenoid Bone Loss on 3-Dimensional Computed Tomography Scans

PURPOSE

To establish the accuracy and reliability of the circle-line method (CLM) of measuring glenoid bone loss; to compare the CLM calculation with a traditionally used method of calculating a ratio; and to evaluate surgeons' ability to estimate the amount of glenoid bone loss before performing any calculations.

METHODS

Three-dimensional reconstructions of computed tomography scans of consecutive patients with anterior instability and glenoid bone loss were reviewed by 13 surgeons blinded to the diagnosis. The reviewers made estimations of bone loss before creating any measurements by viewing the available computed tomography scan as well as the 3-dimensional reconstructions. They selected an en face view of the glenoid to create a best-fit circle. Bone loss calculation with a traditional linear method as well as a CLM calculated by algebraic geometry was completed. The CLM requires calculation of the diameter of a best-fit circle on the glenoid, as well as the length of a single line along the circle representing the line of bone loss. All methods were compared with a computerized method of tracing the area of the glenoid within a best-fit circle. Interobserver and intraobserver calculations were performed. Analysis-of-variance testing was used to compare the estimates of bone loss versus the CLM-calculated bone loss. Tukey post hoc analysis was used to define the accuracy of the CLM calculation compared with a more traditional method of calculating bone loss.

RESULTS

Bone loss estimations were significantly different from CLM-calculated bone loss in all cases except those with greater than 25% bone loss. The CLM was more accurate in all types of bone loss except cases of greater than 25% bone loss. Interobserver reliability was very good for the glenoid diameter measurement and moderate for the CLM. Intraobserver reliability ranged from moderate to good for all methods of measurement.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgeon estimations of glenoid bone loss, as well as traditional line-measurement calculations, are inconsistent and unreliable for accurate determination of the optimal surgical treatment for anterior shoulder instability. The CLM is a simple, reproducible, and accurate method for determining glenoid bone loss and does not require specialized software or imaging protocols.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, diagnostic study.

Estimation of anterior glenoid bone loss area using the ratio of bone defect length to the distance from posterior glenoid rim to the centre of the glenoid

PURPOSE

Estimation of anterior glenoid bone loss is important for surgical decision-making. The purpose of this study was to describe a method for estimating anterior glenoid bone loss.

METHODS

Thirty-nine cadaveric glenoids were digitized to obtain glenoid geometry. Glenoid bare spot centre, arthroscopic centre, and centre of the inferior glenoid circle relative to the geometric centre were measured. To simulate anterior glenoid bone loss, imaginary sequential osteotomies were created 0°, 22.5°, and 45° to the superior-inferior line in a 3D digitizing programme. Per cent of anterior glenoid bone loss area was calculated as the percentage of defect area relative to the entire area of the glenoid. The relationship between area loss and ratio of bone defect length to the distance from posterior glenoid to various centres was determined.

RESULTS

As the ratio of bone defect length to the distance from posterior glenoid to all three centres increased, the per cent area of bone loss increased exponentially. The ratio using the inferior circle centre and arthroscopic centre was highly correlated to the actual glenoid bone loss in all osteotomies (R ² > 0.90). The ratio using the centre of bare area had the lowest correlation. The ratio of defect length to distance from posterior glenoid to arthroscopic centre greater than 2.4 for 0° and 2.0 for 45° osteotomies results in bone loss area greater than 25 %. The bare area centre had the largest variation. Average bone loss was overestimated when the centre of bare spot was used compared to other centre locations.

CONCLUSION

Per cent of anterior glenoid bone loss can be estimated using the ratio of bone defect length to the distance from posterior glenoid rim to the centre of inferior glenoid circle or arthroscopic centre either preoperatively using 3D CT or arthroscopically which can be useful for determining surgical treatment.

Analysis of Agreement Between Computed Tomography Measurements of Glenoid Bone Defects in Anterior Shoulder Instability With and Without Comparison With the Contralateral Shoulder

BACKGROUND

Computed tomography (CT) is frequently used to diagnose glenoid bone defects in anterior shoulder instability. The assessment of glenoid defects on 2-dimensional (2D) and 3-dimensional (3D) CT scans has been reported with and without a comparative study of the contralateral shoulder; however, no previous studies have analyzed if these 4 methods agree.

PURPOSE

To estimate agreement between CT assessments of glenoid defects by examination of the affected shoulder alone and by comparison with the contralateral side on both 2D and 3D CT scans.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 2.

METHODS

A total of 200 prospectively enlisted patients affected by unilateral anterior shoulder instability underwent CT of both shoulders. The area of the missing glenoid was calculated on 4 sets of CT scans (2D and 3D CT images with and without comparison with the contralateral shoulder) by using the circle method. Agreement between the 4 measurements in quantifying the bone defect was estimated according to the Bland-Altman method. Agreement between the 4 measurements in assessing the presence and type of defect (fracture or erosion) was analyzed with κ statistics.

RESULTS

Analysis of agreement between CT measurements in quantifying glenoid bone defects showed that the mean difference between the 4 measures was less than 1% of the area of the inferior glenoid in each pairwise comparison. Limits of agreement were always below the established acceptable limit of 5%. The assessment of the presence and type of bone defect showed strong to near-complete agreement between the 4 measurement methods.

CONCLUSION

CT assessments of glenoid bone defects with and without comparison with the contralateral shoulder showed very good agreement in identifying the size, presence, and type of defect in patients with anterior shoulder instability on both 2D and 3D CT scans.