Is CT scan a predictor of instability in recurrent dislocation shoulder?

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.

Imaging diagnosis in peripheral nerve injury

Peripheral nerve injuries (PNIs) can be caused by various factors, ranging from penetrating injury to compression, stretch and ischemia, and can result in a range of clinical manifestations. Therapeutic interventions can vary depending on the severity, site, and cause of the injury. Imaging plays a crucial role in the precise orientation and planning of surgical interventions, as well as in monitoring the progression of the injury and evaluating treatment outcomes. PNIs can be categorized based on severity into neurapraxia, axonotmesis, and neurotmesis. While PNIs are more common in upper limbs, the localization of the injured site can be challenging. Currently, a variety of imaging modalities including ultrasound (US), computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and positron emission tomography (PET) have been applied in detection and diagnosis of PNIs, and the imaging efficiency and accuracy many vary based on the nature of injuries and severity. This article provides an overview of the causes, severity, and clinical manifestations of PNIs and highlights the role of imaging in their management.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Chronic Shoulder Pain: 2022 Update

Chronic shoulder pain is an extremely common presenting complaint. Potential pain generators include the rotator cuff tendons, biceps tendon, labrum, glenohumeral articular cartilage, acromioclavicular joint, bones, suprascapular and axillary nerves, and the joint capsule/synovium. Radiographs are typically the initial imaging study obtained in patients with chronic shoulder pain. Further imaging may often be required, with modality chosen based on patient symptoms and physical examination findings, which may lead the clinician to suspect a specific pain generator. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision process support the systematic analysis of the medical literature from peer reviewed journals. Established methodology principles such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE are adapted to evaluate the evidence. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User Manual provides the methodology to determine the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where peer reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation.

CT estimation of glenoid bone loss in anterior glenohumeral instability

Aims

Recurrent dislocation is both a cause and consequence of glenoid bone loss, and the extent of the bony defect is an indicator guiding operative intervention. Literature suggests that loss greater than 25% requires glenoid reconstruction. Measuring bone loss is controversial; studies use different methods to determine this, with no clear evidence of reproducibility. A systematic review was performed to identify existing CT-based methods of quantifying glenoid bone loss and establish their reliability and reproducibility

Methods

A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses-compliant systematic review of conventional and grey literature was performed.

Results

A total of 25 studies were initially eligible. Following screening, nine papers were included for review. Main themes identified compared 2D and 3D imaging, as well as linear- compared with area-based techniques. Heterogenous data were acquired, and therefore no meta-analysis was performed.

Conclusion

No ideal CT-based method is demonstrated in the current literature, however evidence suggests that surface area methods are more reproducible and lead to fewer over-estimations of bone loss, provided the views used are standardized. A prospective imaging trial is required to provide a more definitive answer to this research question. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(2):114–122.

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.