CT Compared with Arthroscopy in Quantifying Glenoid Bone Loss

Arthroscopic Bone Block Stabilization for Anterior Shoulder Instability with Subcritical Glenohumeral Bone Loss

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The management options for anterior shoulder instability with minimal bone loss or with critical bone loss are well established. However, there is less clear evidence to guide management for patients with subcritical bone loss, the spectrum of pathology where soft tissue repair alone is prone to higher rates of failures. In this range of bone loss, likely around 13.5% to 20%, the goal of surgery is to restore function and stability while limiting morbidity. As with many procedures in the shoulder, this decision should be tailored to patient anatomy, functional goals, and risk factors. This article provides a review of our current understanding of subcritical bone loss and treatment strategies as well as innovations in management.

RECENT FINDINGS

While surgeons have largely understood that restoration of anatomy is important to optimize outcomes after stabilization surgery, there is increasing evidence that reconstructing bony anatomy and addressing both osseous and soft tissue structures yields better results than either alone. Even in the setting of subcritical bone loss, there is likely a benefit to combined osseous augmentation with soft tissue management. Additionally, there is new evidence to support management of even on-track humeral lesions when the distance to dislocation is sufficiently small, particularly for athletes. Surgeons must balance bony and soft tissue restoration to achieve optimal outcomes for anterior instability with subcritical bone loss. There are still significant limitations in the literature and several emerging techniques for management will require further study to prove their long-term efficacy. Beyond surgery, there should be a focus on a collaborative treatment strategy with the surgeon, patient, and therapists to achieve high-level function and minimize recurrence.

Fast field echo resembling CT using restricted echo-spacing (FRACTURE) MR sequence can provide craniocervical region images comparable to a CT in dogs

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is essential for evaluating cerebellar compression in patients with craniocervical junction abnormalities (CJA). However, it is limited in depicting cortical bone because of its short T2 relaxation times, low proton density, and organized structure. Fast field echo resembling a computed tomography (CT) scan using restricted echo-spacing (FRACTURE) MRI, is a new technique that offers CT-like bone contrast without radiation. This study aimed to assess the feasibility of using FRACTURE MRI for craniocervical junction (CCJ) assessment compared with CT and conventional MRI, potentially reducing the need for multiple scans and radiation exposure, and simplifying procedures in veterinary medicine. CT and MRI of the CCJ were obtained from five healthy beagles. MRI was performed using three-dimensional (3D) T1-weighted, T2-weighted, proton density-weighted (PDW), single echo-FRACTURE (sFRACTURE), and multiple echo-FRACTURE (mFRACTURE) sequences. For qualitative assessment, cortical delineation, trabecular bone visibility, joint space visibility, vertebral canal definition, overall quality, and artifacts were evaluated for each sequence. The geometrical accuracy, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were quantified. Both sFRACTURE and CT images provided significantly higher scores for cortical delineation and trabecular bone visibility than conventional MRI. Joint space visibility and vertebral canal definition were similar to those observed on CT images, regardless of the MR sequence. In the quantitative assessment, the distances measured on T2-weighted images differed significantly from those measured on CT. There were no significant differences between the distances taken using T1-weighted, PD-weighted, sFRACTURE, mFRACTURE and those taken using CT. T1-weighted and sFRACTURE had a higher SNR for trabecular bone than CT. The CNR between the cortical bone and muscle was high on CT and FRACTURE images. However, the CNR between the cortical and trabecular bones was low in mFRACTURE. Similar to CT, FRACTURE sequences showed higher cortical delineation and trabecular bone visibility than T2-weighted, T1-weighted, and PDW CCJ sequences. In particular, sFRACTURE provided a high signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of the trabecular bone and a high CNR between the cortical bone and muscle and between the cortical and trabecular bones. FRACTURE sequences can complement conventional MR sequences for bone assessment of the CCJ in dogs.

Reconsidering "Critical" Bone Loss in Shoulder Instability: 17-Year Follow-Up Study following Arthroscopic Bankart Repair

Background

Glenoid bone loss is a risk factor leading to the failure of arthroscopic Bankart repair. While 20-25% glenoid bone loss has long been considered the level to necessitate bony augmentation, recent studies indicate that 13.5% has a "subcritical" glenoid bone loss level, which is associated with decreased short- and medium-term functional scores. Few researchers worked on the long-term effect of "subcritical" or even less severe degrees of glenoid bone loss on redislocation rates and functional outcomes after arthroscopic Bankart repair. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of subcritical or less severe glenoid bone loss on redislocation rates and function after arthroscopic Bankart repair.

Methods

A patient cohort who had undergone computed tomography (CT) of glenoid bone loss and arthroscopic Bankart repair over 15 years ago was reviewed. Western Ontario Shoulder Instability (WOSI) score, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) score, redislocation after operation, mechanism of recurrence, and revision details were reviewed.

Results

Seventy-five patients were reassessed 17.6 ± 1.9 years following initial surgery. The age at enrolment was 26.8 ± 8.3 years. Twenty-two (29%) patients of the 75 patients had a redislocation on long-term follow-up, though this was not related to glenoid bone loss severity. The impaired functional score was found in patients with initial glenoid bone loss of 7% or more on long-term follow-up: WOSI (physical symptoms): 0.98 ± 2.00 vs 2.25 ± 4.01, p=0.04 and WOSI (total): 0.79 ± 1.43 vs 1.88 ± 3.56, p=0.04.

Conclusions

At a mean of 17.5 years following arthroscopic Bankart repair, redislocation occurs in over a quarter of 75 patients, and they are not related to initial glenoid bone loss severity. Impaired functional outcome is apparent in patients with initial glenoid bone loss of >7%, though this impairment does not seem sufficiently severe to warrant an alternative treatment approach.

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.

Novel anterior coracoglenoid line utilizing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) corresponds with critical glenoid bone loss

OBJECTIVE

Glenoid bone loss is estimated using a best-fit circle method and requires software tools that may not be available. Our hypothesis is that a vertical reference line drawn parallel to the long axis of the glenoid and passing through the inflection point of the coracoid and glenoid will represent a demarcation line of approximately 20% of the glenoid. Our aim is to establish a more efficient method to estimate a surgical threshold for glenoid insufficiency.

METHODS

Fifty patients with normal glenoid anatomy were randomly chosen from an orthopedic surgeon's database. Two orthopedic surgeons utilized T1-weighted sagittal MRIs and the coracoglenoid line technique to determine the percentage of bony glenoid anterior to vertical line. Two musculoskeletal radiologists measured the same 50 glenoids using the circle technique. Differences were determined using dependent t test. Reliability was compared using interclass correlation coefficient and Kappa. Validity was compared using Pearson correlation coefficient.

RESULTS

Mean surface area of the glenoid anterior to the vertical line was on average 21.69% ± 3.12%. Surface area of the glenoid using the circle method was on average 20.86% ± 2.29%. Inter-rater reliability of the circle method was 0.553 (fair). Inter-rater reliability of the vertical line technique was 0.83 (excellent). There was a linear relationship between circle and vertical line measurements, r = 0.704 (moderate to high).

CONCLUSION

The coracoglenoid line appears to represent a line of demarcation of approximately 21% of glenoid bone anterior to the coracoglenoid line. Our technique was found to be reliable, valid, and accurate.

3D MRI with CT-like bone contrast - An overview of current approaches and practical clinical implementation

CT is the imaging modality of choice for assessment of 3D bony morphology but incurs the penalty of ionizing radiation. Improving the ability of 3D MRI to provide high-resolution images of cortical bone with CT-like bone contrast has been a focus of recent research. The ability of 3D MRI to deliver cortical bone information with similar diagnostic performance to CT would complement assessment of soft tissues and medullary bone from a single MRI examination, simplifying evaluation and obviating radiation exposure from additional CT. This article presents an overview of current 3D MRI approaches for imaging cortical bone with CT-like bone contrast including ultrashort echo time, zero echo time, T1-weighted gradient recalled echo, susceptibility-weighted imaging and deep learning techniques. We also discuss clinical implementation of an optimized stack-of-stars 3D gradient recalled echo pulse sequence (3D-Bone) on commercially available MRI scanners for rendering 3D MRI with CT-like bone contrast in our institutional practice.

The Bony Bankart: Clinical and Technical Considerations

Fractures of the anteroinferior aspect of the glenoid rim, known as a bony Bankart lesions, can occur frequently in the setting of traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation. If these lesions are large and are left untreated in active patients, then recurrent glenohumeral instability due to glenoid bone deficiency may occur. Therefore, the clinician must recognize these lesions when they occur and provide appropriate treatment to restore physiological joint stability. This article aims to provide an overview focusing on clinical and technical considerations in the diagnosis and treatment of bony Bankart lesions.

Determining On-/Off-track Lesions in Glenohumeral Dislocation Using Multiplanar Reconstruction Computed Tomography Is Easier and More Reproducible Than Using 3-dimensional Computed Tomography

BACKGROUND

The glenoid track is a useful tool to predict engagement and therefore the risk of recurrence of dislocation in the presence of Hill-Sachs and/or bony Bankart lesions. To assess the glenoid track preoperatively, only methods using 3-dimensional reconstruction (3DR) have been described, but these lack a standardized, reliable, and easy description.

PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS

The purpose was to evaluate a new method for determining the glenoid track using computed tomography (CT) scan with multiplanar reconstruction (MPR) in comparison with using 3DR images. Our hypothesis was that the MPR method would be easier to standardize and more reproducible.

STUDY DESIGN

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

METHODS

A total of 52 patients whose arthro-CT scan revealed a Hill-Sachs lesion, whether in combination with a bony Bankart lesion or not, were included. Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine data from the 52 CT scans were all analyzed using open source image analysis software. Glenoid width, with or without associated bony defect, and the Hill-Sachs interval (HSI) were measured on MPR as well as on 3DR images. All measurements obtained using both methods were directly compared and evaluated for intra- and interobserver reliability.

RESULTS

In absolute values, only small differences were seen between the MPR and 3DR methods, amounting to a maximal difference of 0.07 cm for the HSI and 0.04 cm for the glenoid width. For glenoid measurements, both methods were similar. For humeral measurements, the MPR method demonstrated higher inter- and intraobserver reliability than did the 3DR method.

CONCLUSION

The newly described MPR method for the assessment of the glenoid track and HSI is at least as accurate as the published 3DR method, with better intra- and interobserver reliability. Because MPRs are also easier to obtain, this method could be recommended in daily practice.

Clinical and radiological examination of bony-mediated shoulder instability

The coexistence of glenoid and humeral head bone defects may increase the risk of recurrence of instability after soft tissue repair.

Revealed factors in medical history such as male gender, younger age of dislocation, an increasing number of dislocations, contact sports, and manual work or epilepsy may increase the recurrence rate of instability.

In physical examination, positive bony apprehension test, catching and crepitations in shoulder movement may suggest osseous deficiency.

Anteroposterior and axial views allow for the detection of particular bony lesions in patients with recurrent anterior shoulder instability.

Computed Tomography (CT) with multiplanar reconstruction (MPR) and various types of 3D rendering in 2D (quasi-3D-CT) and 3D (true-3D-CT) space allows not only detection of glenoid and humeral bone defects but most of all their quantification and relations (engaging/not-engaging and on-track/off-track) in the context of bipolar lesion.

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly developing and can provide an equally accurate measurement tool for bone assessment, avoiding radiation exposure for the patient.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2020;5:815-827. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.200049

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.

Anterior Instability: What to Look for

Most first-time anterior glenohumeral dislocations occur as the result of trauma. Many patients suffer recurrent episodes of anterior shoulder instability (ASI). The anatomy and biomechanics of ASI is addressed, as is the pathophysiology of capsulolabral injury. The roles of imaging modalities are described, including computed tomography (CT) and MR imaging with the additional value of arthrography and specialized imaging positions. Advances in 3D CT and MR imaging particularly with respect to the quantification of humeral and glenoid bone loss is discussed. The concepts of engaging and nonengaging lesions as well as on-track and off-track lesions are examined.

Analysis of glenohumeral morphological factors for anterior shoulder instability and rotator cuff tear by magnetic resonance imaging

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate whether there are glenohumeral morphological differences between normal population, glenohumeral instability, and rotator cuff pathology.

METHOD

In this study, shoulder magnetic resonance (MR) images of 150 patients were evaluated. Patients included in the study were studied in three groups of 50 individuals: patients with anterior shoulder instability in group 1, patients with rotator cuff tear in group 2, and control subjects without shoulder pathology in group 3.

RESULTS

There were statistically significant differences between groups in evaluations for glenoid version, glenoid coronal height, glenoid coronal diameter, humeral axial and coronal diameters, and coracohumeral interval distances. Significant differences were observed between groups 2 and 3 in glenoid axial diameter, glenoid coronal height, glenoid depth, humeral coronal diameter, and coracohumeral distances.

CONCLUSION

The results obtained in this study suggest that glenoid version, glenoid coronal height and diameter, humeral diameter, and coracohumeral interval parameters in glenohumeral morphology-related parameters in patients with anterior instability are different from those of normal population and patients with rotator cuff pathology. In cases where there is a clinically difficult diagnosis, these radiological measurements will be helpful to clinicians in diagnosis and treatment planning, especially in cases of treatment-resistant cases.

[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.

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

PURPOSE

Glenoid bone defect and the defect on the posterior-superior surface of the humerus "Hill-Sachs lesion" are the commonly seen bony lesions in patients with recurrent dislocation shoulder. Computed tomography (CT) scan is considered as the best option in assessing the bony defects in the recurrent dislocation shoulder. The aim of this study was to assess the clinical and radiological co-relation in the patients with recurrent dislocation shoulder.

METHODS

Forty-four patients of recurrent dislocation shoulder who were evaluated between January 2015 and December 2017 at a tertiary care center, clinically and radiologically using CT scan and meeting the inclusion criteria, were included. The correlation between the clinical history of the number of dislocations and the bone loss using CT scan was evaluated. Two sided statistical tests were performed at a significance level of α = 0.05. The analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS STATISTICS (version 22.0).

RESULTS

All the patients were male with mean age of 25.95 (SD ± 4.2) years were evaluated. Twenty-four patients sustained injury in sporting activities while 20 patients sustained injury in training. There were an average of 4.68 (SD ± 3.1, range 2-15, median 3) episodes of dislocation. Forty-one patients had the glenoid bone loss while 40 had the Hill-Sachs lesions. The mean glenoid width defect was 10.80% (range 0-27%) while the mean Hill-Sachs defect was 14.27 mm (range 0-26.6 mm). The mean area of bone loss of the glenoid surface was 10.81% (range 0-22.4%). The lesions were on track in 34 patients and off track in 10 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

CT scan of the shoulder joint is an effective method for assessing the amount of bone loss. The number of dislocations are correlated significantly with off-track lesions and the amount of bone loss on the glenoid and Hill-Sachs lesion. The glenoid width bone loss of more than 9.80% or Hill-Sachs defect of more than 14.80 mm are the critical defects after which the frequency of dislocations increases.

A Flat Anterior Glenoid Corresponds to Subcritical Glenoid Bone Loss

PURPOSE

To define a quickly recognizable pattern for subcritical bone loss using the inflection point between the superior and inferior glenoid.

METHODS

Following institutional review board approval, 3-dimensional reconstructions of 31 shoulder computed tomography scans from cadaveric specimens were obtained. Exclusion criteria were age >65 years or evidence of fracture or arthritis of the glenoid. An en face image was obtained for each glenoid. A vertical line was defined at the most anterior point of the superior glenoid. The area of the inferior glenoid anterior to this vertical line, area of the total glenoid, chord length of the anterior portion, and a best-fit circle for the inferior glenoid were measured. These numbers were compared with determine predicted bone loss relative to this vertical line. This investigation was performed at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL.

RESULTS

The mean surface area of the glenoid anterior to the vertical line was 10.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.6-10.9) of the total glenoid, and 12.8% (95% CI, 12.0-13.6) of the best-fit circle of the inferior glenoid. The chord length measurement was 16.8% (95% CI, 15.7-18.3) of the total diameter of the best-fit circle. Compared with the best-fit circle, bone loss to this vertical line would represent >10% bone loss in 80.7% of patients and >13.5% bone loss in 35.5% of patients (range, 14.3%-18.1%). The negative predictive value of the vertical line was 19% for predicting 10% bone loss, 65% for predicting 13.5% bone loss, 74% for predicting 15% bone loss, and 100% for predicting 20% bone loss.

CONCLUSIONS

A flat anterior glenoid may offer a consistent pattern that corresponds to 12.8 ± 3% bone loss relative to a best-fit circle. This measurement is in line with published values of subcritical bone loss, making this a clinically useful pattern to recognize in patients with subcritical glenoid bone loss.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Our results suggest that an easily recognizable pattern of a flat anterior glenoid may correspond with more recently suggested levels of subclinical bone loss in patients with anterior shoulder instability.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, diagnostic study.

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.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Shoulder Pain-Traumatic

Traumatic shoulder pain is pain directly attributed to a traumatic event, either acute or chronic. This pain may be the result of either fracture (the clavicle, scapula, or proximal humerus) or soft-tissue injury (most commonly of the rotator cuff, acromioclavicular ligaments, or labroligamentous complex). Imaging assessment of traumatic shoulder pain begins with conventional radiography and, depending on physical examination findings, will require MRI or MR arthrography for assessment of soft-tissue injuries and CT for delineation of fracture planes. Ultrasound excels in assessment of rotator cuff injuries but has limited usefulness for assessment of the deep soft-tissues. CT angiography and conventional arteriography are helpful for assessment of vascular injury, and bone scintigraphy can be used in assessment of complex regional pain syndrome after traumatic shoulder injury. 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 include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

Automated 3-Dimensional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Allows for Accurate Evaluation of Glenoid Bone Loss Compared With 3-Dimensional Computed Tomography

PURPOSE

To evaluate clinical measurements of glenoid bone loss based on 3-dimensional (3D) computed tomography (CT) and automatically segmented 3D reconstructions from Dixon fat-water magnetic resonance (MR) imaging.

METHODS

Available CT and MR studies from 16 patients with recurrent anterior shoulder instability were retrospectively reviewed. Three-dimensional reconstructions were formed independently by 2 observers using freely available software and a simple threshold-based segmentation (3D Slicer, version 4.8.0; http://www.slicer.org). Bone loss was estimated with the perfect-circle method. Intra-user and interuser reproducibility was determined with intraclass correlation coefficients. Bland-Altman plots were used to evaluate the similarity between imaging modalities.

RESULTS

Differences between MR and CT estimates of bone loss ranged from 0% to 6%. The individual intraclass correlation coefficients showed good to excellent reliability, with intraobserver comparisons between MR- and CT-based bone loss estimates ranging from 0.94 to 0.99. Bland-Altman plots showed 95% confidence intervals from -5% to 6% for differences between MR and CT estimates, with 88% of all measurements (42 of 48) showing a less than 2% difference between MR and CT estimates.

CONCLUSIONS

The described methodology for obtaining an MR-based 3D reconstruction of the glenoid can evaluate glenoid bone loss similarly to the performance of a 3D CT reconstruction. The results may allow surgeons to simplify the preoperative imaging protocol for patients with recurrent shoulder stabilization and limit the number of shoulder CT scans.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective therapeutic trial.

Modified Latarjet Without Capsulolabral Repair in Rugby Players With Recurrent Anterior Glenohumeral Instability and Significant Glenoid Bone Loss

BACKGROUND

The optimal management of recurrent anterior shoulder instability with significant glenoid bone loss in high-demand collision athletes remains a challenge.

PURPOSE

To analyze the time to return to sport, clinical outcomes, and recurrences following a modified Latarjet procedure without capsulolabral repair in rugby players with recurrent anterior shoulder instability and significant glenoid bone loss.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

Between June 2008 and June 2015, 50 competitive rugby players (practice >2 times per week and competition during weekends) with recurrent anterior shoulder instability underwent operation with the modified congruent arc Latarjet procedure without capsulolabral repair in our institution. Cases included 18 primary repairs and 32 revisions. Return to sports, range of motion (ROM), the Rowe score, a visual analog scale for pain in sport activity (VAS), and the Athletic Shoulder Outcome Scoring System (ASOSS) were used to assess functional outcomes. Recurrences were also evaluated. The postoperative bone block position and consolidation were assessed with computed tomography. The final analysis included 49 shoulders in 48 patients (31 revision cases).

RESULTS

The mean follow-up was 48 months (range, 24-108 months) and the mean age at the time of operation was 22.8 years (range, 17-35 years). Forty-five patients (93.7%) returned to playing rugby, all at their preinjury level of play. No significant difference in shoulder ROM was found between preoperative and postoperative results. The Rowe, VAS, and ASOSS scores showed statistically significant improvement after operation ( P < .001). The Rowe score increased from a mean of 39.5 points preoperatively to 94 points postoperatively ( P < .01). The VAS score decreased from 3.6 points preoperatively to 1.2 points postoperatively ( P < .01). The ASOSS score improved significantly from a mean of 44 points preoperatively to 89.5 points postoperatively ( P < .01). No recurrence of shoulder dislocation or subluxation was noted. The bone block healed in 43 shoulders (88%).

CONCLUSION

In rugby players with recurrent anterior shoulder instability and significant glenoid bone loss, the modified Latarjet procedure without capsulolabral repair produced excellent functional outcomes, with most athletes returning to rugby at their preinjury level of play without recurrences.

Automated Radiology-Operative Note Communication Tool; Closing the Loop in Musculoskeletal Imaging

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Correlation of imaging studies and reference standard outcomes is a significant challenge in radiology. This study evaluates the effectiveness of a new communication tool by assessing the ability of this system to correctly match the imaging studies to arthroscopy reports and qualitatively assessing radiologist behavior before and after the implementation of this system.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using a commercially available communication or educational tool and applying a novel matching rule algorithm, radiology and arthroscopy reports were matched from January 17, 2017 to March 1, 2017 based on anatomy. The interpreting radiologist was presented with email notifications containing the impression of the imaging report and the entire arthroscopy report. Total correlation rate of appropriate report pairings, modality-specific correlation rate, and the anatomy-specific correlation rate were calculated. Radiologists using the system were given a survey.

RESULTS

Overall correlation rate for all musculoskeletal imaging was 83.1% (433 or 508). Low correlation was found in fluoroscopic procedures at 74.4%, and the highest correlation was found with ultrasound at 88.4%. Anatomic location varied from 51.6% for spine to 98.8% for hips and pelvis studies. Survey results revealed 87.5% of the respondents reporting being either satisfied or very satisfied with the new communication tool. The survey also revealed that some radiologists reviewed more cases than before.

CONCLUSIONS

Matching of radiology and arthroscopy reports by anatomy allows for excellent report correlation (83.1%). Automated correlation improves the quality and efficiency of feedback to radiologists, providing important opportunities for learning and improved accuracy.

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.

Three-Dimensional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Quantification of Glenoid Bone Loss Is Equivalent to 3-Dimensional Computed Tomography Quantification: Cadaveric Study

PURPOSE

To assess the ability of 3-dimensional (3D) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI, 1.5 and 3 tesla [T]) to quantify glenoid bone loss in a cadaveric model compared with the current gold standard, 3D computed tomography (CT).

METHODS

Six cadaveric shoulders were used to create a bone loss model, leaving the surrounding soft tissues intact. The anteroposterior (AP) dimension of the glenoid was measured at the glenoid equator and after soft tissue layer closure the specimen underwent scanning (CT, 1.5-T MRI, and 3-T MRI) with the following methods (0%, 10%, and 25% defect by area). Raw axial data from the scans were segmented using manual mask manipulation for bone and reconstructed using Mimics software to obtain a 3D en face glenoid view. Using calibrated Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine images, the diameter of the glenoid at the equator and the area of the glenoid defect was measured on all imaging modalities.

RESULTS

In specimens with 10% or 25% defects, no difference was detected between imaging modalities when comparing the measured defect size (10% defect P = .27, 25% defect P = .73). All 3 modalities demonstrated a strong correlation with the actual defect size (CT, ρ = .97; 1.5-T MRI, ρ = .93; 3-T MRI, ρ = .92, P < .0001). When looking at the absolute difference between the actual and measured defect area, no significance was noted between imaging modalities (10% defect P = .34, 25% defect P = .47). The error of 3-T 3D MRI increased with increasing defect size (P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

Both 1.5- and 3-T-based 3D MRI reconstructions of glenoid bone loss correlate with measurements from 3D CT scan data and actual defect size in a cadaveric model. Regardless of imaging modality, the error in bone loss measurement tends to increase with increased defect size. Use of 3D MRI in the setting of shoulder instability could obviate the need for CT scans.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The goal of our work was to develop a reproducible method of determining glenoid bone loss from 3D MRI data and hence eliminate the need for CT scans in this setting. This will lead to decreased cost of care as well as decreased radiation exposure to patients. The long-term goal is a fully automated system that is as approachable for clinicians as current 3D CT technology.

The Bony Bankart Lesion: How to Measure the Glenoid Bone Loss

An osseous Bankart lesion is commonly seen in patients with an anterior shoulder dislocation. It is defined as a detachment of the anteroinferior labrum associated with a glenoid rim fracture. Radiological studies are crucial not only for detecting glenoid bone defects but also for measuring the amount of bone loss. The precise quantification of the bony defect is crucial for the therapeutic desicion-making and clinical outcomes. Although we know that major glenoid bone loss requires surgical intervention, none of the studies performed so far answered the question what size of the defect should be an indication for open surgery procedures. Moreover, there is still no consensus on the exact percentage of glenoid loss that results in a higher risk of re-dislocations. In our opinion, there is a strong need for a consensus on universally accepted measuring techniques of the glenoid defect as well as on algorithms with validated glenoid bone loss threshold values for therapeutic decision-making. In this study, we review the techniques described so far in the literature and try to assess if any of these techniques should be treated as a leading method of detecting and quantifying osseous glenoid lesions.

Mean Glenoid Defect Size and Location Associated With Anterior Shoulder Instability: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

There is a strong correlation between glenoid defect size and recurrent anterior shoulder instability. A better understanding of glenoid defects could lead to improved treatments and outcomes.

PURPOSE

To (1) determine the rate of reporting numeric measurements for glenoid defect size, (2) determine the consistency of glenoid defect size and location reported within the literature, (3) define the typical size and location of glenoid defects, and (4) determine whether a correlation exists between defect size and treatment outcome.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

PubMed, Ovid, and Cochrane databases were searched for clinical studies measuring glenoid defect size or location. We excluded studies with defect size requirements or pathology other than anterior instability and studies that included patients with known prior surgery. Our search produced 83 studies; 38 studies provided numeric measurements for glenoid defect size and 2 for defect location.

RESULTS

From 1981 to 2000, a total of 5.6% (1 of 18) of the studies reported numeric measurements for glenoid defect size; from 2001 to 2014, the rate of reporting glenoid defects increased to 58.7% (37 of 63). Fourteen studies (n = 1363 shoulders) reported defect size ranges for percentage loss of glenoid width, and 9 studies (n = 570 shoulders) reported defect size ranges for percentage loss of glenoid surface area. According to 2 studies, the mean glenoid defect orientation was pointing toward the 3:01 and 3:20 positions on the glenoid clock face.

CONCLUSION

Since 2001, the rate of reporting numeric measurements for glenoid defect size was only 58.7%. Among studies reporting the percentage loss of glenoid width, 23.6% of shoulders had a defect between 10% and 25%, and among studies reporting the percentage loss of glenoid surface area, 44.7% of shoulders had a defect between 5% and 20%. There is significant variability in the way glenoid bone loss is measured, calculated, and reported.

Tomographic evaluation of Hill-Sachs lesions: is there a correlation between different methods of measurement?

BACKGROUND

Several methods are currently available to evaluate and quantify the glenoid or humeral bone loss; however, none is universally accepted, particularly in the case of Hill-Sachs (HS) lesions.

PURPOSE

To establish whether there is correlation among different methods of measuring HS lesions, and to investigate the correlation between glenoid bone loss and the various HS lesion measurements and to assess the inter-observer reliability of such measurements.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We assessed computed tomography (CT) or arthro-CT scans taken from individuals with recurrent anterior glenohumeral dislocation. The scans were independently assessed by two examiners. The parameters assessed were as follows: HS lesion width and depth on the axial and coronal planes, articular arc loss on the axial plane, and percentage of glenoid bone loss on the sagittal plane.

RESULTS

Scans from 50 shoulders were assessed. The percentage of articular arc loss and HS lesion width on the axial plane were the only measurements that exhibited strong correlation (r = 0.83; P < 0.001). The values of the correlation coefficient corresponding to HS lesion depth on the coronal plane were the lowest. Most of the measurements exhibited moderate correlation. The inter-examiner reliability was good relative to all measurements except for HS lesion width and depth on the coronal plane, for which it was moderate.

CONCLUSION

The measurements of articular arc loss and HS lesion width on the axial plane exhibited strong correlation. The inter-examiner reliability relative to articular arc loss, HS lesion width and depth on the axial plane, and glenoid bone loss was good.

What can the Radiologist do to Help the Surgeon Manage Shoulder Instability?

Imaging of the shoulder forms an important adjunct in clinical decision making in patients with shoulder instability. The typical lesions related with classic anterior and anteroinferior shoulder dislocation are an anteroinferior labral avulsion with or without bony fragment of bone loss – a (bony) Bankart lesion – and a posterolateral humeral head impaction fracture – the Hill-Sachs lesions. These are relatively straightforward to identify on imaging, although normal variants of the inferior labrum and variants of labral damage may cause confusion. Other capsuloligamentous lesions, often associated with less typical types of instability, are much more difficult to identify correctly on imaging, as they occur in the anterosuperior part of the glenohumeral joint with its many normal variants or because they result in more subtle, and therefore easily overlooked, changes in morphology or signal intensity. This paper aims at describing the appearance of the normal and pathologic glenohumeral joint related to shoulder instability. Ample reference will be given as to why identification of abnormalities, whether normal or pathologic, is important to the surgeon facing a treatment decision.

Radiographic sclerotic contour loss in the identification of glenoid bone loss

PURPOSE

Quantification of glenoid bone loss guides surgical management in the setting of anterior shoulder instability. Glenoid defects resulting in ≥20 % articular area loss require bony reconstruction. The objective of this study was to evaluate the utility of sclerotic glenoid contour loss on true anteroposterior radiography in the detection of varying quantities of simulated glenoid bone loss using a cadaveric model.

METHODS

Eight cadaveric scapulae with full radiographic sclerotic contour were osteotomized to produce glenoid surface area reductions of 10-50 %. Radiography was performed initially and following each osteotomy, and assessed by an orthopedic surgeon and radiologist twice. Quantity of glenoid loss was compared using Fisher's exact test. Sensitivity, specificity, and reliability analyses were performed.

RESULTS

On the first radiographic review, sclerotic contour loss was detected in 6 out of 8 scapulae with 50 % area loss, but only 1 out of 8 scapulae with 20 % area loss. There was a significantly higher proportion of radiographs containing sclerotic contour loss for defects with 50 % area loss compared to those with 0-25 % loss (p ≤ 0.02). In the detection of ≥20 % area loss, sclerotic contour loss had a sensitivity of 33-43 % and specificity of 88-100 %. Moderate inter-observer reliability (Cohen's kappa value of 0.42-0.53) and intra-observer reliability (kappa value of 0.46-0.58) were found.

CONCLUSION

Radiographic sclerotic contour loss is commonly observed in radiographs of scapulae with 40-50 % glenoid area loss and less often with smaller lesions. However, this finding lacks utility in discerning specific quantifications of glenoid bone loss. In a clinical setting, sclerotic contour loss suggests the presence of a large glenoid defect that may require bony reconstruction. However, an intact sclerotic contour does not rule out significant bone loss.

Arthroscopic Latarjet procedure: is optimal positioning of the bone block and screws possible? A prospective computed tomography scan analysis

HYPOTHESIS

We hypothesized that the arthroscopic Latarjet procedure could be performed with accurate bone block positioning and screw fixation with a similar rate of complications to the open Latarjet procedure.

METHODS

In this prospective study, 105 shoulders (104 patients) underwent the arthroscopic Latarjet procedure performed by the same senior surgeon. The day after surgery, an independent surgeon examiner performed a multiplanar bidimensional computed tomography scan analysis. We also evaluated our learning curve by comparing 2 chronologic periods (30 procedures performed in each period), separated by an interval during which 45 procedures were performed.

RESULTS

Of the 105 shoulders included in the study, 95 (90.5%) (94 patients) were evaluated. The coracoid graft was accurately positioned relative to the equator of the glenoid surface in 87 of 95 shoulders (91.5%). Accurate bone-block positioning on the axial view with "circle" evaluation was obtained for 77 of 95 shoulders (81%). This procedure was performed in a lateralized position in 7 of 95 shoulders (7.3%) and in a medialized position in 11 shoulders (11.6%). The mean screw angulation with the glenoid surface was 21°. One patient had transient axillary nerve palsy. Of the initial 104 patients, 3 (2.8%) underwent revision. The analysis of our results indicated that the screw-glenoid surface angle significantly predicted the accuracy of the bone-block positioning (P = .001). Our learning curve estimates showed that, compared with our initial period, the average surgical time decreased, and the risk of lateralization showed a statistically significant decrease during the last period (P = .006).

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that accurate positioning of the bone block onto the anterior aspect of the glenoid is possible, safe, and reproducible with the arthroscopic Latarjet procedure without additional complications compared with open surgery.

RESULTS FROM LATARJET SURGERY FOR TREATING TRAUMATIC ANTERIOR SHOULDER INSTABILITY ASSOCIATED WITH BONE EROSION IN THE GLENOID CAVITY, AFTER MINIMUM FOLLOW-UP OF ONE YEAR

Objective: Evaluate the results from the Latarjet procedure in patients with anterior recurrent dislocation of the shoulder who present bone loss of the glenoid cavity greater than 25%. Methods: Twenty six male patients underwent the Latarjet procedure, The bone loss was evaluated by means of radiography using the Bernageau view and by means of CAT scan. The patients were evaluated with regard to range of motion, using the Rowe and UCLA scales, before and after the operation, and by radiographs to assess the presence of arthrosis, position and consolidation of the graft and positioning of the screws. Statistical analysis was used to assess whether there was any relationship between the number of episodes of dislocation and the presence of arthrosis, , and any relationship between arthrosis and limitations on lateral rotation. Differences in range of motion between the operated and unaffected sides and in the UCLA and Rowe scale. Results: The means for elevation and lateral rotation were statistically poorer on the operated side. The UCLA and Rowe scale showed that there was a statistically significant improvement in the clinical-functional results (P < 0.001 for both). There was a relationship between the number of episodes of dislocation and the presence of arthrosis, We also did not observe any correlation between limitations on lateral rotation and arthrosis. Conclusion: The Latarjet procedure is an efficient method for cases of severe erosion of the glenoid margin.

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.

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

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare four 3-dimensional (3D) computed tomography (CT) methods of measuring glenoid bone loss with the arthroscopic estimation of glenoid bone loss.

METHODS

Twenty patients with recurrent anterior shoulder instability underwent bilateral shoulder CT scans and were found to have glenoid bone loss. Arthroscopic estimation of glenoid bone loss was performed in all patients. Three-dimensional CT reconstruction was performed on the CT scans of each patient. The glenoid bone loss of each patient was measured using the surface area, Pico, ratio, and anteroposterior distance-from-bare area methods. The mean percent loss calculated with each method was compared with arthroscopy to determine the reliability of arthroscopy in the measurement of glenoid bone loss.

RESULTS

The mean percent bone loss calculated with arthroscopic estimation, surface area, Pico, ratio, and anteroposterior distance-from-bare area methods was 18.13% ± 11.81%, 12.15% ± 8.50% (P = .005), 12.77% ± 8.17% (P = .002), 9.50% ± 8.74% (P < .001), and 12.44% ± 10.68% (P = .001), respectively. Repeated-measures analysis of variance showed that the 3D CT methods and arthroscopy were significantly different (F4,76 = 13.168, P = .02). The estimate using arthroscopy is 55% greater than the average of the 3D CT methods.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that arthroscopy significantly overestimates glenoid bone loss compared with CT and call into question its validity as a method of measurement. A more internally consistent and accurate method for the measurement of glenoid bone loss is necessary to appropriately diagnose and treat shoulder instability.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, case series.

Imaging methods for quantifying glenoid and Hill-Sachs bone loss in traumatic instability of the shoulder: a scoping review

Background

Glenohumeral instability is a common problem following traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation. Two major risk factors of recurrent instability are glenoid and Hill-Sachs bone loss. Higher failure rates of arthroscopic Bankart repairs are associated with larger degrees of bone loss; therefore it is important to accurately and reliably quantify glenohumeral bone loss pre-operatively. This may be done with radiography, CT, or MRI; however no gold standard modality or method has been determined. A scoping review of the literature was performed to identify imaging methods for quantifying glenohumeral bone loss.

Methods

The scoping review was systematic in approach using a comprehensive search strategy and standardized study selection and evaluation. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched. Initial selection included articles from January 2000 until July 2013, and was based on the review of titles and abstracts. Articles were carried forward if either reviewer thought that the study was appropriate. Final study selection was based on full text review based on pre-specified criteria. Consensus was reached for final article inclusion through discussion amongst the investigators. One reviewer extracted data while a second reviewer independently assessed data extraction for discrepancies.

Results

Forty-one studies evaluating glenoid and/or Hill-Sachs bone loss were included: 32 studies evaluated glenoid bone loss while 11 studies evaluated humeral head bone loss. Radiography was useful as a screening tool but not to quantify glenoid bone loss. CT was most accurate but necessitates radiation exposure. The Pico Method and Glenoid Index method were the most accurate and reliable methods for quantifying glenoid bone loss, particularly when using three-dimensional CT (3DCT). Radiography and CT have been used to quantify Hill-Sachs bone loss, but have not been studied as extensively as glenoid bone loss.

Conclusions

Radiography can be used for screening patients for significant glenoid bone loss. CT imaging, using the Glenoid Index or Pico Method, has good evidence for accurate quantification of glenoid bone loss. There is limited evidence to guide imaging of Hill-Sachs bone loss. As a consensus has not been reached, further study will help to clarify the best imaging modality and method for quantifying glenohumeral bone loss.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12891-015-0607-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Quantitative assessment of the latarjet procedure for large glenoid defects by computed tomography: a coracoid graft can sufficiently restore the glenoid arc

BACKGROUND

Coracoid transfer to a large glenoid defect is considered an excellent method to restore the surface area of the anteroinferior glenoid. However, there is little quantitative evidence supporting whether a coracoid graft can sufficiently restore the glenoid arc.

PURPOSE

To assess whether the Latarjet procedure can sufficiently restore the surface area of the glenoid.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

A total of 44 patients who underwent a Latarjet operation for a large glenoid defect between February 2009 and July 2011 were enrolled in this study. Three-dimensional computed tomography was used to calculate the surface areas of the preoperative glenoid defect size and the reconstructed glenoid. Preoperative and postoperative clinical results also were assessed.

RESULTS

At the last follow-up, the mean visual analog scale score for instability during motion improved significantly from 5.1 points (range, 3-10 points) preoperatively to 1.3 points (range, 0-4 points) (P<.001). The mean deficit in external rotation at the side, external rotation at 90° of abduction, and internal rotation to the posterior were 10°±20°, 7°±16°, and 1.9°±4°, respectively (P=.004, .022, and .009, respectively). The overall recurrence rate was 4.5% (2 of 44 shoulders). The mean preoperative glenoid defect size was 157±38 mm2 (range, 141-239 mm2; 25.3%±6% of the intact glenoid surface). The mean surface area of the coracoid graft used for reconstruction was 152±34 mm2 (range, 146-236 mm2; 24.8%±5% of the intact glenoid surface). After the Latarjet procedure, the mean surface area of the reconstructed glenoid was 706±32 mm2 (range, 639-749 mm2). Finally, postoperative glenoid defect size was 5±11 mm2 (range, 3-28 mm2; 1.5%±2% of the intact glenoid surface).

CONCLUSION

The Latarjet procedure can provide satisfactory outcomes, including a low recurrence rate and reliable functional recovery. Defects at the anteroinferior glenoid were restored to nearly normal after coracoid transfer by use of the Latarjet procedure, which is an anatomically matched reconstruction.

Recurrent anterior glenohumeral instability: the quantification of glenoid bone loss using magnetic resonance imaging

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the accuracy of conventional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in determining the severity of glenoid bone loss in patients with anterior shoulder dislocation by comparing the results with arthroscopic measurements.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Institutional review board approval and written consent from all patients were obtained. Thirty-six consecutive patients (29 men, seven women; mean age, 34.5 [range, 18-55] years) with recurrent anterior shoulder dislocation (≥3 dislocations; mean, 37.9; range, 3-200) and suspected glenoid bone loss underwent shoulder MRI before arthroscopy (mean interval, 28.5 [range, 9-73] days). Assessments of glenoid bone loss by MRI (using the best-fit circle area method) and arthroscopy were compared. Inter- and intrareader reproducibility of MRI-derived measurements was evaluated using arthroscopy as a comparative standard.

RESULTS

Glenoid bone loss was evident on MRI and during arthroscopy in all patients. Inter- and intrareader correlations of MRI-derived measurements were excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.80-0.82; r = 0.81-0.86). The first and second observers' measurements showed strong (r = 0.76) and moderate (r = 0.69) interreader correlation, respectively, with arthroscopic measurements.

CONCLUSIONS

Conventional MRI can be used to measure glenoid bone loss, particularly when employed by an experienced musculoskeletal radiologist.

Validity of arthroscopic measurement of glenoid bone loss using the bare spot

PURPOSE

Our aim was to test the validity of using the bare spot method to quantify glenoid bone loss arthroscopically in patients with shoulder instability.

METHODS

Twenty-seven patients with no evidence of instability (18 males, nine females; mean age 59.1 years) were evaluated arthroscopically to assess whether the bare spot is consistently located at the center of the inferior glenoid. Another 40 patients with glenohumeral anterior instability who underwent shoulder arthroscopy (30 males, ten females; mean age 25.9 years) were evaluated for glenoid bone loss with preoperative three-dimensional computed tomography (3D-CT) and arthroscopic examination. In patients without instability, the distances from the bare spot of the inferior glenoid to the anterior (Da) and posterior (Dp) glenoid rim were measured arthroscopically. In patients with instability, we compared the percentage glenoid bone loss calculated using CT versus arthroscopic measurements.

RESULTS

Among patients without instability, the bare spot could not be identified in three of 27 patients. Da (9.5±1.2 mm) was smaller than Dp (10.1±1.5 mm), but it was not significantly different. However, only 55% of glenoids showed less than 1 mm of difference between Da and Dp, and 18% showed more than 2 mm difference in length. The bare spot could not be identified in five of 40 patients with instability. Pearson's correlation coefficient showed significant (P<0.001) and strong (R (2)=0.63) correlation in percentage glenoid bone loss between the 3D-CT and arthroscopy method measurements. However, in ten shoulders (29%), the difference in percentage glenoid bone loss between 3D-CT and arthroscopic measurements was greater than 5%.

CONCLUSION

The bare spot was not consistently located at the center of the inferior glenoid, and the arthroscopic measurement of glenoid bone loss using the bare spot as a landmark was inaccurate in some patients with anterior glenohumeral instability.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, prospective comparative study.

Techniques to evaluate glenoid bone loss

Assessing glenoid morphology as well as quantifying bone loss is critical when treating patients with recurrent anterior glenohumeral instability because this greatly affects surgeons surgical planning. Although many surgeons agree that 3-dimensionally reconstructed computed tomography (3DCT) images with humeral head digitally subtracted has been considered to be a gold standard when assessing glenoid morphology, there are some surgeons who are making an attempt to replace computed tomography with magnetic resonance imaging to reduce cost for imaging studies and avoid possible radiation exposure, and demonstrated that MRI was equally valuable as 3DCT to quantify glenoid bone loss. However, the role of preoperative imaging study is not only quantifying glenoid bone loss but to assess the glenoid shape and morphology to facilitate surgeons stabilizing the shoulder. In this view, 3DCT is the most recommended preoperative imaging study for bony tissue which provides critical and substantial information of the glenoid.

Use of 3D MR reconstructions in the evaluation of glenoid bone loss: a clinical study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the ability of 3D MR shoulder reconstructions to accurately quantify glenoid bone loss in the clinical setting using findings at the time of arthroscopy as the gold standard.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective review of patients with MR shoulder studies that included 3D MR reconstructions (3D MR) produced using an axial Dixon 3D-T1W-FLASH sequence at our institution was conducted with the following inclusion criteria: history of anterior shoulder dislocation, arthroscopy (OR) performed within 6 months of the MRI, and an estimate of glenoid bone loss made in the OR using the bare-spot method. Two musculoskeletal radiologists produced estimates of bone loss along the glenoid width, measured in mm and %, on 3D MR using the best-fit circle method, which were then compared to the OR measurements.

RESULTS

There were a total of 15 patients (13 men, two women; mean age, 28, range, 19-51 years). There was no significant difference, on average, between the MRI (mean 3.4 mm/12.6 %; range, 0-30 %) and OR (mean, 12.7 %; range, 0-30 %) measurements of glenoid bone loss (p = 0.767). A 95 % confidence interval for the mean absolute error extended from 0.45-2.21 %, implying that, when averaged over all patients, the true mean absolute error of the MRI measurements relative to the OR measurements is expected to be less than 2.21 %. Inter-reader agreement between the two readers had an IC of 0.92 and CC of 0.90 in terms of percentage of bone loss.

CONCLUSIONS

3D MR reconstructions of the shoulder can be used to accurately measure glenoid bone loss.

The importance of CT for the pre-operative surgical planning in recurrent anterior shoulder instability

BACKGROUND

MRI is the current pre-operative imaging standard in recurrent anterior shoulder instability; however, CT has increasingly gained interest due to its advantages in the detection of bony glenoid defects. This study compares the value of CT imaging and MRI for pre-operative surgical planning in recurrent anterior shoulder instability.

METHODS

Between 2006 and 2009, 83 patients presented to the author's department with recurrent anterior shoulder instability. For 48 patients, both, pre-operative MRI and CT images were available. The respective patho-morphological descriptions were retrospectively compared with the intra-operative findings. The effect of each imaging technique on the pre-operative surgical planning was analyzed and the accuracy in predicting the necessity of open versus arthroscopic surgery was compared.

RESULTS

In determining the necessity of open versus arthroscopic surgery CT imaging rendered an inaccurate prediction in 4.8 % of the cases which is less than the 25.0 % calculated for MRI. (p = 0.019). MRI showed a low sensitivity (35.3 %) in the detection of significant glenoid bone defects (≥20 % of the glenoid width measured on en-face views using a best-fit circle technique) while CT imaging provided an accurate prediction of the intra-operative finding in all cases.

CONCLUSION

Despite the advantages of MRI in the detection of soft tissue damages in recurrent anterior shoulder instability CT imaging proved to be more important for pre-operative planning by prevailing in the detection of glenoid defects. Therefore, the replacement of MRI as preoperative imaging standard with CT imaging is recommended.