Skip to main content

Table 5 Other Methods for Assessing Glenoid Bone Loss

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
De Filippo et al. [66]: Cadaveric study 2DCT 10 cadavers De Filipo Method: Fig. 6 Curved MPR CT:
Assessment: Note: Curved MPR assessed curved structures very accurate PE 1.03 %; inter-observer reliability (Cronbach alpha) 0.995
2 had anteroinferior defects created; 1 re-measured at 3 months; measured glenoid bone area on flat MPR & curved MPR of all 10 cadavers; laser scanner used directly on cadavers as gold standard; 3 radiologists measure once   Intra-observer reliability (ICC) 0.998
Outcome:   Flat MPR CT:
PE, reliability   PE 16.99 %
   Inter-observer reliability (Cronbach alpha) 0.995
   Note: Authors conclude curved gives more accurate glenoid contour
Diederichs et al. [59]: Cadaveric study 3DCT 5 cadavers; 30 patients with no glenoid injury Manually traced out border of glenoid; volume and surface area calculated with measurements made manually (to calculate volume, depth was assumed to be 10 mm) Coefficient of variation:
Assessment:   Width 1.7 %
Glenoid width, height, surface area, & volume; osteotomy created on one cadaveric glenoid; compared to contralateral for calculation; 1 investigator measured study group; another measured the controls   Volume 1.3 %
Outcome:   
Coefficient of varaition   
Dumont et al. [49]: Technique description CT; MRI Authors describe a new method to calculate surface area loss Best-fit circle to inferior glenoid; measured angle (alpha) from center of circle between superior and inferior edges of lesion; converted measured angle to percentage area loss = [(alpha-sinalpha)/2π] x 100 No assessment of reliability or comparison to other methods
Note: This method avoids issues with defect orientation and is simple to apply without complicated software
Tauber et al. [56]; Retrospective case series CT 10 patients with associated glenoid fracture (>21 % glenoid length) Fit circle to outer glenoid, measured glenoid length at 45° angle (A), measured length to defect (B); calculated bone loss as: (A x 0.965 – B)/A x 100 Inter-observer reliability:
Assessment:   ICC = 0.81
2 examiners measured once   Average width loss 26.2 %
Outcome:   
Reliability   
Van Den Bogaert et al. [69]: Cadaveric study 2DCT 20 cadavers Glenohumeral index: Glenohumeral Index Compared to Gold Standard:
Assessment: Maximal AP diameter of humeral head / maximal AP diameter of glenoid (axial images) Non-significant difference
Diameter measured with a digital caliper in vitro (gold standard) followed by CT quantification; 3 observers measured once   
Outcome:   
Direct comparison   
  1. List of Abbreviations: ICC: intraclass correlation coefficient