Editorial Commentary: Glenoid Bone Loss Measurements in Shoulder Instability-Precise but Not Accurate

Association of the Stability Ratio With Postoperative Clinical Function and Recurrence of Instability in Patients With Anterior Shoulder Instability: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background

The stability ratio (SR) is used to assess the stability of the glenoid in anterior shoulder instability (ASI). However, the association between the SR and postoperative clinical function and instability recurrence after arthroscopic Bankart repair is unknown.

Hypothesis

Patients with a higher SR would have better postoperative clinical scores and a lower incidence of recurrent instability than patients with a lower SR after arthroscopic Bankart repair.

Study Design

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods

A total of 62 patients who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair for ASI between 2013 and 2019 were enrolled. All patients had at least 2 years of follow-up data. The preoperative SR was calculated via biomechanical testing based on patient-specific 3-dimensional glenoid models, and patients were evenly divided into 2 groups: high SR (≥16.13%) and low SR (<16.13%). Baseline information (patient characteristics, clinical history, bone defect area [BDA], and SR), clinical scores at the final follow-up (Single Assessment Numerical Evaluation, Western Ontario Shoulder Index, and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons), and instability recurrence were compared between the 2 groups.

Results

No significant differences were found in the baseline information between the high- and low-SR groups, except for the BDA (8.5% [high-SR group] vs 11.9% [low-SR group]; P = .01). No patients in the high-SR group had recurrent instability, while 6 patients (19.4%) had recurrent instability in the low-SR group (P = .02). Patients in the high-SR group had superior clinical outcomes compared with those in the low-SR group in terms of postoperative Western Ontario Shoulder Index scores (median, 205 vs 410, respectively; P = .006) and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores (median, 98.3 vs 95, respectively; P = .02).

Conclusion

In the present study, the SR was significantly associated with postoperative clinical function and recurrence of instability after arthroscopic Bankart repair in patients with ASI.

Reliability of Manual Measurements Versus Semiautomated Software for Glenoid Bone Loss Quantification in Patients With Anterior Shoulder Instability

Background

The presence of glenoid bone defects is indicative in the choice of treatment for patients with anterior shoulder instability. In contrast to traditional linear- and area-based measurements, techniques such as the consideration of glenoid concavity have been proposed and validated.

Purpose

To compare the reliability of linear (1-dimensional [1D]), area (2-dimensional [2D]), and concavity (3-dimensional [3D]) measurements to quantify glenoid bone loss performed manually and to analyze how automated measurements affect reliability.

Study Design

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

Methods

Computed tomography images of 100 patients treated for anterior shoulder instability with differently sized glenoid defects were evaluated independently by 2 orthopaedic surgeons manually using conventional software (OsiriX; Pixmeo) as well as automatically with a dedicated prototype software program (ImFusion Suite; ImFusion). Parameters obtained included 1D (defect diameter, best-fit circle diameter), 2D (defect area, best-fit circle area), and 3D (bony shoulder stability ratio) measurements. Mean values and reliability as expressed by the intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]) were compared between the manual and automated measurements.

Results

When manually obtained, the measurements showed almost perfect agreement for 1D parameters (ICC = 0.83), substantial agreement for 2D parameters (ICC = 0.79), and moderate agreement for the 3D parameter (ICC = 0.48). When measurements were aided by automated software, the agreement between raters was almost perfect for all parameters (ICC = 0.90 for 1D, 2D, and 3D). There was a significant difference in mean values between manually versus automatically obtained measurements for 1D, 2D, and 3D parameters (P < .001 for all).

Conclusion

While more advanced measurement techniques that take glenoid concavity into account are more accurate in determining the biomechanical relevance of glenoid bone loss, our study showed that the reliability of manually performed, more complex measurements was moderate.

Early Treatment of Shoulder Pathology Is Necessary but Not Enough Is Being Performed

Delayed treatment of shoulder instability results in bone loss requiring more-complicated surgery, in turn resulting in less-optimal outcomes. Similarly, delayed treatment of repairable rotator cuff tears results in irreparable tears requiring more-complicated surgery and resulting in less-optimal outcomes. Delayed treatment of shoulder pathology is a problem. Solutions include education and research investigation.

Glenoid concavity has a higher impact on shoulder stability than the size of a bony defect

PURPOSE

Surgical treatment of shoulder instability caused by anterior glenoid bone loss is based on a critical threshold of the defect size. Recent studies indicate that the glenoid concavity is essential for glenohumeral stability. However, biomechanical proof of this principle is lacking. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether glenoid concavity allows a more precise assessment of glenohumeral stability than the defect size alone.

METHODS

The stability ratio (SR) is a biomechanical estimate of glenohumeral stability. It is defined as the maximum dislocating force the joint can resist related to a medial compression force. This ratio was determined for 17 human cadaveric glenoids in a robotic test setup depending on osteochondral concavity and anterior defect size. Bony defects were created gradually, and a 3D measuring arm was used for morphometric measurements. The influence of defect size and concavity on the SR was examined using linear models. In addition, the morphometrical-based bony shoulder stability ratio (BSSR) was evaluated to prove its suitability for estimation of glenohumeral stability independent of defect size.

RESULTS

Glenoid concavity is a significant predictor for the SR, while the defect size provides minor informative value. The linear model featured a high goodness of fit with a determination coefficient of R² = 0.98, indicating that 98% of the SR is predictable by concavity and defect size. The low mean squared error (MSE) of 4.2% proved a precise estimation of the SR. Defect size as an exclusive predictor in the linear model reduced R² to 0.9 and increased the MSE to 25.7%. Furthermore, the loss of SR with increasing defect size was shown to be significantly dependent on the initial concavity. The BSSR as a single predictor for glenohumeral stability led to highest precision with MSE = 3.4%.

CONCLUSION

Glenoid concavity is a crucial factor for the SR. Independent of the defect size, the computable BSSR is a precise biomechanical estimate of the measured SR. The inclusion of glenoid concavity has the potential to influence clinical decision-making for an improved and personalised treatment of glenohumeral instability with anterior glenoid bone loss.