Skip to main content

Table 3 Studies Assessing Glenoid Width Loss with CT and MRI

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

Study Modality Details Quantification Technique Findings
Charousset et al. [47]: Retrospective case series Radiography; 2DCT 31 patients True AP radiography: Loss of sclerotic line:
Assessment: loss of sclerotic line Inter-observer ICC 0.44-0.47
True AP radiography & 2DCT arthrogram; 3 observers measured twice CT: Intra-observer ICC 0.66-0.93
Outcome: Griffiths Index (Fig. 1) & best-fit circle width loss (Fig. 10) Griffiths Index:
Reliability   Inter-observer ICC 0.68-0.71
   Intra-observer ICC 0.78-0.9
   Best-Fit Circle Width Loss:
   Inter-observer ICC 0.74
   Intra-observer ICC 0.9-0.95;
Chuang et al. [68]: Retrospective case series 3DCT 25 patients CT: Glenoid Index correctly categorized 96 % of patients
Assessment: Glenoid Index (Fig. 5) Glenoid Index:
Bilateral 3DCT followed by diagnostic arthroscopy: >25 % glenoid width loss (Latarjet); <25 % glenoid width loss (arthroscopic Bankart) Arthroscopy: Latarjet group: mean 0.668
Outcome: Bare area method Bankart group: mean 0.914
   Ability to predict type of surgery offered   
Griffith et al. [33]: Case–control study 2DCT; 3DCT 40 patients (46 shoulders); 10 healthy subjects Measurements: Healthy subjects:
Assessment: Width & cross-sectional surface area on axial slice; length; width; length:width ratio; glenoid surface area by point tracing; flattening of anterior glenoid curvature No significant difference in side-side measurements
Bilateral CT;1 observer measured once   Instability Subjects:
Outcome:   Width (3 mm difference; 10.8 % width loss); length:width ratio, & cross-sectional area significantly different side-to-side
Glenoid comparison with healthy subjects on en face glenoid view   
Griffith et al. [58]: Prospective case series 2DCT 50 patients Width Measurement: CT correlation with arthroscopy:
Assessment: Griffiths Index (Fig. 1) Pearson Correlation Coefficient r = 0.79
Bilateral CT followed by arthroscopy; compared to measurements made during arthroscopy (bare spot method); 1 observer measured once   
Outcome:   Sensitivity 92.7 %
Correlation, PPV, NPV   Specificity 77.8 %
   PPV 95 %; NPV 70 %.
   Mean bone loss(p = 0.17):
   CT 11.0 %+/−8.1 %
   Arthroscopy 12.3 %+/−8.8 %
Griffith et al. [62]: Case–control study 2DCT 218 patients; 56 healthy subjects Width measurement:
Griffith Index (Fig. 1)
Normal side-to-side glenoid width difference small (0.46 mm);
Assessment: Note: Glenoid bone loss not calculated on bilateral subjects Reliability:
Bilateral CT; 1 observer measured all subjects; 2 observers measured 40 patients twice   Inter-observer reliability ICC 0.91
Outcome:   Intra-observer reliability ICC 0.95
Reliability   
Gyftopoulos et al. [48]: Cadaveric study 2DCT; 3DCT; MRI 18 cadavers Width method: Intra-observer concordance correlation coefficient (CCC):
Assessment: Best-fit circle width method based on ipsilateral glenoid 2DCT 0.95
Defects created along anterior and antero-inferior glenoid; 3 observers measured defect size once; 1 observer re-measured at 4 weeks; gold standard was digital photograph   3DCT 0.95
Outcome:   MRI 0.95
Reliability, PE   Inter-observer CCC:
   2DCT −0.28-0.88
   3DCT 0.82-0.93
   MRI 0.70-0.96
   Percent error:
   2DCT 2.22-17.11 %
   3DCT 2.17-3.50 %
   MRI 2.06-5.94 %
Lee et al. [52]: Prospective cohort study 2DCT; MRI 65 patients 1) Best-fit circle surface area: Inter-observer reliability (ICC)
Assessment: Pico Method Best-fit circle width R = 0.95
CT (bilateral) & MRI followed by arthroscopy; 1 observer measured CT once; 3 observers measured MRI once; 1 observer measured MRI 3 times;arthroscopy was gold standard using bare-area technique 2) Best-fit circle width method: Area (Pico method) R = 0.90
Outcome: Based on contralateral glenoid Intra-observer reliability:
Reliability, correlation   Width R = 0.98, area R = 0.97
   Correlation:
   CT-MRI r = 0.83
   CT-arthroscopy r = 0.91
   MRI-arthroscopy r = 0.84
Moroder et al. [50]: Retrospective case series 3DCT, MRI 48 patients Width method: CT for glenoid lesion:
Assessment: Best-fit circle width method Sensitivity 100 %
Pre-op CT & MRI evaluated after failed instability surgery; findings at initial operation were comparators; 1 observer measured significant glenoid defects (>20 % of width)   Specificity 100 %
Outcome:   MRI for significant lesion:
Sensitivity 35.3 %
Sensitivity, specificity   Specificity 100 %
   CT would have misled treatment in only 4.2 %
Tian et al. [51]: Prospective cohort study 2DCT; MRA 41 patients; 15 control patients Width method: No significant size measurements between MRA (10.48 %+/−8.71 %) & CT (10.96 %+/−9.0 %; p = 0.288).
Assessment: Best-fit circle width method based on ipsilateral glenoid (Fig. 10) Correlation between methods:
CT & MRA; 2 observers measured once   Pearson correlation coefficient r = 0.921; SD 3.3 %
Outcomes:   
Correlation   
  1. List of Abbreviations: ICC: intraclass correlation coefficient; PE: percent error; PPV: positive predictive value; NPV: negative predictive value