Comparison of two different measurement methods to determine glenoid bone defects: area or width?

Glenoid Diameter Is an Inaccurate Method for Percent Glenoid Bone Loss Quantification: Analysis and Techniques for Improved Accuracy

“…Recently, Altan et al 21 used 3D CT scans of 36 patients to compare 2 different techniques for measuring the size of glenoid bone defects. One technique was based on linear measurement of bone loss (glenoid index 22 ), whereas the other was based on surface-area measurement, essentially using a best-fit circle and the following formula 18 : Percent bone loss ¼ Defect area/ Circle area  100%.…”

Does Bone Loss Imaging Modality, Measurement Methodology, and Interobserver Reliability Alter Treatment in Glenohumeral Instability?

“…Several previous studies have been conducted to analyze differences between linear-and area-based measurements. Altan et al 25 analyzed the correlation between area and linear measurements and suggested that linear measurements at the 4-o'clock position had a sufficiently high correlation coefficient of 0.860 to allow clinical use. Bakshi et al 26 analyzed linear-and area-based measurements in a group of 28 patients and found linear measurements to significantly overestimate bone loss, similar to our own study.…”

“…24 CT measurements can be performed via both linear-and area-based methods. [25][26][27] In addition, they can be performed on both 2-dimensional CT slices and 3-dimensional osseous scapular reconstructions with subtraction of the humeral head to allow an en face view. [28][29][30][31] As CT involves radiation and additional cost, there has been significant interest in determining whether these measurements could be made accurately and reliably using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alone.…”

Assessment and Evaluation of Glenoid Bone Loss

“…The diameter method is another commonly used method to evaluate glenoid bone loss, which we also demonstrate in this technical note. The line drawn within ImageJ that represents the diameter of the circle was drawn perpendicular to the defect border according to similar findings by Altan et al 12 The diameter method is frequently used because of its ease of use; however, Bhatia et al 13 reported that determining the percentage of glenoid bone loss based on the glenoid diameter is inconsistent with a surface areaebased method. They found that the diameter method calculation overestimated glenoid bone loss by approximately 4% when compared with the geometric calculation of surface area of a circular segment.…”