Mathematical modeling of glenoid bone loss demonstrate differences in calculations that May affect surgical decision making

Parada, Stephen A.; Jones, Max; DeFoor, Mikalyn T.; Griswold, B. Gage; Roberts, Aaron; Provencher, Matthew T.

doi:10.1016/j.jor.2020.09.016

Cited by 7 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These techniques are limited as they rely on the glenoid bare area which is not consistently correlated with the true center of the glenoid and may subsequently lead to inaccurate quantification of bone loss [6, 18, 25]. Parada et al showed that the linear measurement percentage method based on the best‐fit circle glenoid overestimated GBL at every potential one mm increment until 50% of the glenoid width [21]. Moreover, measuring bone defect using the best‐fit circle with two different methods can yield significantly different results [2].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Calculating glenoid bone loss based on glenoid height using ipsilateral three-dimensional computed tomography

Rayes

Sparavalo

et al. 2022

Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To investigate the relationship between glenoid width and other morphologic parameters using three-dimensional (3D) computed tomography (CT) images of native shoulders, and to create a new measurement tool to assess glenoid defects in a Canadian population with established anterior shoulder instability. Methods Forty-three glenoid CT scans were analyzed for patients who underwent contralateral shoulder glenoid reconstruction for anterior shoulder instability between 2012 and 2020. Demographic data were obtained including age, gender and BMI. The subjects were excluded if they had a prior history of ipsilateral shoulder instability, shoulder fractures, or bone tumors. The following glenoid parameters were measured: width (W), height (H), anteroposterior (AP) depth, superior-inferior (SI) depth and version. The shape of the glenoid was also classiied into pear, inverted comma or oval. Results There were 35 male and 8 females with a mean age of 34.5 ± 12.9 years. The glenoid width was strongly correlated with the height (R 2 = 0.9) and a regression model equation was obtained: W (mm) = 2.5 + 0.7*H (mm). There was also strong correlation with gender (P < 0.001), glenoid shape (P = 0.030), AP and SI depths (P = 0.006 and P < 0.001, respectively). Male gender was associated with higher measurement values for all parameters. The most common glenoid shapes were the pear (46.5%) and oval morphotypes (39.6%) for the whole study group. ConclusionThe native glenoid width can be estimated based on glenoid height using ipsilateral 3D CT. This may help with preoperative planning and surgical decision-making for patients with anterior shoulder instability and glenoid bone loss. Level of evidence III.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Calculating glenoid bone loss based on glenoid height using ipsilateral three-dimensional computed tomography

Rayes

Sparavalo

et al. 2022

Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…3 However, as always in medicine there are caveats, and here measurement techniques may not be that accurate and can either over-or underestimate true bone loss. 4,5 Despite these inaccuracies, clinical studies confirm that glenoid bone loss of more than 10% to 15% is an independent risk factor for recurrent instability following primary arthroscopic primary repair. 6,7 Provencher at al.…”

Section: See Related Article On Page 1719mentioning

confidence: 99%

Editorial Commentary: Delphi Expert Consensus Clarifies Evidence-Based Medicine for Shoulder Instability and Bone Loss

Hohmann¹

2021

Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Arthroscopic repair is sufficient for treating recurrent shoulder instability in patients with bipolar bone defects and minor glenoid bone loss

Chou

Kang

Tan

et al. 2021

Journal of Orthopaedics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mathematical modeling of glenoid bone loss demonstrate differences in calculations that May affect surgical decision making

Cited by 7 publications

References 27 publications

Calculating glenoid bone loss based on glenoid height using ipsilateral three-dimensional computed tomography

Calculating glenoid bone loss based on glenoid height using ipsilateral three-dimensional computed tomography

Editorial Commentary: Delphi Expert Consensus Clarifies Evidence-Based Medicine for Shoulder Instability and Bone Loss

Arthroscopic repair is sufficient for treating recurrent shoulder instability in patients with bipolar bone defects and minor glenoid bone loss

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About