|
Barchilon et al. [20]: Prospective case series
|
2DCT; 3DCT
|
13 patients
|
Best-fit circle surface area:
|
Method 1 with method 2:
|
|
Assessment:
|
Approximation based on intact posteroinferior edge of ipsilateral glenoid
|
R2 = 0.91
|
|
2DCT & 3DCT using 3 methods
|
(1) Software directly measured area of circle and area of missing area using 2DCT (gold standard)
|
Method 1 with method 3:
|
|
Outcome:
|
(2) Mathematical formula to calculate % surface area loss using 2DCT based on circle radius & defect depth with software
|
R2 = 0.60
|
|
Intra-method comparison
|
(3) Manually measured defect depth & circle radius using 3DCT & femoral head gauge; formula to calculate % surface area
|
Note: BCSA methods can be applied without computer software
|
|
Hantes et al. [65]: Cadaveric study
|
3DCT
|
14 cadavers
|
Best-fit circle surface area:
|
Reliability:
|
|
Assessment:
|
Sugaya Method
|
Coefficient of variation 2.2-2.5 %
|
|
CT scan following 3 serial osteotomy’s; 1 observer measured 5 times for 2 glenoids
| | |
|
Outcome:
| | |
|
Reliability
| | |
|
Huijsmans et al. [21]: Cadaveric study
|
3DCT; MRI
|
14 cadavers
|
Best-fit circle surface area:
|
Difference with digital picture:
|
|
Assessment:
|
Circle approximated based on ipsilateral glenoid; software used
|
CT −0.81 % to −1.21 %
|
|
Digital picture, CT, & MRI before/after osteotomy (random size) on anterior glenoid; 2 observers measured 3 times
| |
MRI 0.61 % to 0.74 % (non-significant)
|
|
Outcome:
| |
CT:
|
|
Reliability
| |
Inter-observer r2 = 0.94
|
| | |
Intra-observer r2 = 0.97 (observer 1) and 0.90 (observer 2)
|
| | |
MRI:
|
| | |
Inter-observer r2 = 0.87
|
| | |
Intra-observer r2 = 0.93 (observer 1) and r2 = 0.92 (observer 2)
|
| | |
Digital image:
|
| | |
Inter-observer r2 = 0.97
|
|
Lee et al. [52]: Prospective case series
|
2DCT; MRI
|
65 patients
|
1)
Best-fit circle surface area (Pico method)
|
Inter-observer ICC:
|
|
Assessment:
|
2) Best-fit circle width method
|
0.95 for best-fit circle width
|
|
CT (bilateral) & MRI followed by arthroscopy; 1 observer measured CT once; 3 observers measured MRI once; 1 observer measured MRI 3 times
|
Arthroscopy with bare-area technique (used as gold standard)
|
0.90 for area (Pico method)
|
|
Outcome:
| |
Intra-observer reliability ICC:
|
|
Reliability
| |
0.98 width
|
| | |
0.97 area
|
| | |
Correlation:
|
| | |
CT & MRI 0.83
|
| | |
CT & arthroscopy 0.91
|
| | |
MRI & arthroscopy 0.84
|
|
Magarelli et al. [32]: Prospective case series
|
2DCT
|
40 patients
|
Best-fit circle surface area method:
|
Intra-observer reliability:
|
|
Assessment:
|
Pico method based on contralateral glenoid
|
ICC 0.94
|
|
Bilateral CT; 1 observer measured 3 times; 1observer measured once
| |
SEM 1.1 %.
|
|
Outcome:
| |
Inter-observer reliability:
|
|
Reliability
| |
ICC 0.90
|
| | |
SEM 1.0 %.
|
| | |
Note: No comparison to other methods
|
|
Magarelli et al. [57]: Prospective cohort study
|
2DCT; 3DCT
|
100 patients
|
Best-fit circle surface area:
|
Mean difference:
|
|
Assessment:
|
Pico method based on contralateral glenoid
|
0.62 %+/−1.96 %
|
|
Bilateral CT; 2 observers measured once
| |
Note: No reliability measurement
|
|
Outcome:
| | |
|
Agreement between 2D & 3D CT
| | |
|
Nofsinger et al. [35]: Retrospective case series
|
3DCT
|
23 patients
|
Best-fit circle surface area:
|
Normal shoulder:
|
|
Assessment:
|
Anatomic Glenoid Index: circle matched to postero-inferior glenoid of contralateral glenoid; software measured area of circle
|
Circle fit true glenoid closely −100.5 %, SD 2.2 %.
|
|
Bilateral pre-op CT followed by surgical repair (12 Bankart, 11
| |
Mean AGI for Bankart group:
|
|
Latarjet); 3 blinded observers measured once
|
(A1); circle manually adjusted to fit defect & area again calculated by software (A2); area loss = A2/A1 x 100
|
92.1 %+/−5.2 %
|
|
Outcome:
| |
Mean AGI for Latarjet:
|
|
Surgical decision based on size >25 % at arthroscopy; reliability
| |
89.6 %+/−4.7 %
|
| | |
Inter-rater reliability (Pearson correlation coefficient):
|
| | |
0.60-0.84
|
| | |
Note: Did not have the power to separate the two surgical groups
|
|
Park et al. [60]: Retrospective case series
|
2DCTA
|
30 patients
|
Best-fit circle surface area:
|
Intra-observer reliability:
|
|
Assessment:
|
Pico method based on ipsilateral glenoid
|
ICC 0.96-1.00;
|
|
CTA taken pre-op, at 3 months, and 1 year after bony Bankart repair; 1 observer measured 6 times
| |
Positive relationship between number of dislocations & defect size
|
|
Outcome:
| | |
|
Reliability
| | |
|
Sugaya et al. [11]: Case–control study
|
3DCT
|
100 patients, 10 healthy volunteers
|
Best-fit circle surface:
|
Normal glenoid did not differ significantly from contralateral glenoid; inferior portion of glenoid approximates a true circle; did not compare measurements to arthroscopic measurements; no reliability measurements
|
|
Assessment:
|
Sugaya Method with bone fragment manually outlined
|
Note: Technique would not work in case of attritional bone loss without a Bankart fragment
|
|
Bilateral CT; defects categorized as: small (<5 %), medium (5-20 %), or large (>20 %); patients also had arthroscopy: 1 observer measured once
| | |
|
Outcome:
| | |
| | |
Comparison to normal glenoid
| | |
