Reliability of Manual Measurements Versus Semiautomated Software for Glenoid Bone Loss Quantification in Patients With Anterior Shoulder Instability

Overview

Journal Orthop J Sports Med

Specialty Orthopedics

Date 2024 Feb 14

PMID 38352173

Authors

Katrin Karpinski

Doruk Akguen

Henry Gebauer

Alp Paksoy

Mattia Lupetti

Viktoria Markova

Oliver Zettinig

Philipp Moroder

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: The presence of glenoid bone defects is indicative in the choice of treatment for patients with anterior shoulder instability. In contrast to traditional linear- and area-based measurements, techniques such as the consideration of glenoid concavity have been proposed and validated.

Purpose: To compare the reliability of linear (1-dimensional [1D]), area (2-dimensional [2D]), and concavity (3-dimensional [3D]) measurements to quantify glenoid bone loss performed manually and to analyze how automated measurements affect reliability.

Study Design: Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 3.

Methods: Computed tomography images of 100 patients treated for anterior shoulder instability with differently sized glenoid defects were evaluated independently by 2 orthopaedic surgeons manually using conventional software (OsiriX; Pixmeo) as well as automatically with a dedicated prototype software program (ImFusion Suite; ImFusion). Parameters obtained included 1D (defect diameter, best-fit circle diameter), 2D (defect area, best-fit circle area), and 3D (bony shoulder stability ratio) measurements. Mean values and reliability as expressed by the intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]) were compared between the manual and automated measurements.

Results: When manually obtained, the measurements showed almost perfect agreement for 1D parameters (ICC = 0.83), substantial agreement for 2D parameters (ICC = 0.79), and moderate agreement for the 3D parameter (ICC = 0.48). When measurements were aided by automated software, the agreement between raters was almost perfect for all parameters (ICC = 0.90 for 1D, 2D, and 3D). There was a significant difference in mean values between manually versus automatically obtained measurements for 1D, 2D, and 3D parameters ( < .001 for all).

Conclusion: While more advanced measurement techniques that take glenoid concavity into account are more accurate in determining the biomechanical relevance of glenoid bone loss, our study showed that the reliability of manually performed, more complex measurements was moderate.

References

Lo I, Parten P, Burkhart S . The inverted pear glenoid: an indicator of significant glenoid bone loss. Arthroscopy. 2004; 20(2):169-74. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2003.11.036. View

Wermers J, Schliemann B, Raschke M, Michel P, Heilmann L, Dyrna F . Glenoid concavity has a higher impact on shoulder stability than the size of a bony defect. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2021; 29(8):2631-2639. PMC: 8298230. DOI: 10.1007/s00167-021-06562-3. View

Shaha J, Cook J, Song D, Rowles D, Bottoni C, Shaha S . Redefining "Critical" Bone Loss in Shoulder Instability: Functional Outcomes Worsen With "Subcritical" Bone Loss. Am J Sports Med. 2015; 43(7):1719-25. DOI: 10.1177/0363546515578250. View

Yamamoto N, Itoi E, Abe H, Kikuchi K, Seki N, Minagawa H . Effect of an anterior glenoid defect on anterior shoulder stability: a cadaveric study. Am J Sports Med. 2009; 37(5):949-54. DOI: 10.1177/0363546508330139. View

Tauber M, Resch H, Forstner R, Raffl M, Schauer J . Reasons for failure after surgical repair of anterior shoulder instability. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2004; 13(3):279-85. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2004.01.008. View

Griffith J, Antonio G, Yung P, Wong E, Yu A, Ahuja A . Prevalence, pattern, and spectrum of glenoid bone loss in anterior shoulder dislocation: CT analysis of 218 patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008; 190(5):1247-54. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.07.3009. View

Wermers J, Raschke M, Wilken M, Riegel A, Katthagen J . The Anatomy of Glenoid Concavity-Bony and Osteochondral Assessment of a Stability-Related Parameter. J Clin Med. 2021; 10(19). PMC: 8509742. DOI: 10.3390/jcm10194316. View

Moroder P, Damm P, Wierer G, Bohm E, Minkus M, Plachel F . Challenging the Current Concept of Critical Glenoid Bone Loss in Shoulder Instability: Does the Size Measurement Really Tell It All?. Am J Sports Med. 2019; 47(3):688-694. DOI: 10.1177/0363546518819102. View

Moroder P . Editorial Commentary: Glenoid Bone Loss Measurements in Shoulder Instability-Precise but Not Accurate. Arthroscopy. 2020; 36(8):2314-2315. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2020.05.006. View

10.

Shin S, Kim R, Jeon Y, Kwon T . Critical Value of Anterior Glenoid Bone Loss That Leads to Recurrent Glenohumeral Instability After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair. Am J Sports Med. 2017; 45(9):1975-1981. DOI: 10.1177/0363546517697963. View

11.

Shin S, Koh Y, Bui C, Jeong W, Akeda M, Cho N . What Is the Critical Value of Glenoid Bone Loss at Which Soft Tissue Bankart Repair Does Not Restore Glenohumeral Translation, Restricts Range of Motion, and Leads to Abnormal Humeral Head Position?. Am J Sports Med. 2016; 44(11):2784-2791. DOI: 10.1177/0363546516656367. View

12.

Landis J, Koch G . The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977; 33(1):159-74. View

13.

Moroder P, Plachel F, Huettner A, Ernstbrunner L, Minkus M, Boehm E . The Effect of Scapula Tilt and Best-Fit Circle Placement When Measuring Glenoid Bone Loss in Shoulder Instability Patients. Arthroscopy. 2017; 34(2):398-404. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2017.08.234. View

14.

Lippitt S, Vanderhooft J, Harris S, Sidles J, Harryman 2nd D, Matsen 3rd F . Glenohumeral stability from concavity-compression: A quantitative analysis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012; 2(1):27-35. DOI: 10.1016/S1058-2746(09)80134-1. View

15.

Baudi P, Righi P, Bolognesi D, Rivetta S, Rossi Urtoler E, Guicciardi N . How to identify and calculate glenoid bone deficit. Chir Organi Mov. 2006; 90(2):145-52. View

16.

Arenas-Miquelez A, Dabirrahmani D, Sharma G, Graham P, Appleyard R, Bokor D . What Is the Most Reliable Method of Measuring Glenoid Bone Loss in Anterior Glenohumeral Instability? A Cadaveric Study Comparing Different Measurement Techniques for Glenoid Bone Loss. Am J Sports Med. 2021; 49(13):3628-3637. DOI: 10.1177/03635465211041386. View

17.

Itoi E, Lee S, Berglund L, Berge L, An K . The effect of a glenoid defect on anteroinferior stability of the shoulder after Bankart repair: a cadaveric study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000; 82(1):35-46. DOI: 10.2106/00004623-200001000-00005. View

18.

Moroder P, Bohm E, Scheibel M . The Arthroscopic Bankart-Plus Procedure for Treatment of Anterior Shoulder Instability With Small to Intermediate Glenoid Defects. Arthrosc Tech. 2018; 7(4):e379-e384. PMC: 5982609. DOI: 10.1016/j.eats.2017.10.009. View

19.

Verweij L, Schuit A, Kerkhoffs G, Blankevoort L, van den Bekerom M, van Deurzen D . Accuracy of Currently Available Methods in Quantifying Anterior Glenoid Bone Loss: Controversy Regarding Gold Standard-A Systematic Review. Arthroscopy. 2020; 36(8):2295-2313.e1. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2020.04.012. View

20.

Bois A, Fening S, Polster J, Jones M, Miniaci A . Quantifying glenoid bone loss in anterior shoulder instability: reliability and accuracy of 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional computed tomography measurement techniques. Am J Sports Med. 2012; 40(11):2569-77. DOI: 10.1177/0363546512458247. View