0 119

Cited 5 times in

Disagreement Between the Accepted Best-Fit Circle Method to Calculate Bone Loss Between Injured and Uninjured Shoulders

 Woo-Sung Do  ;  Joo-Hyung Kim  ;  Joon-Ryul Lim  ;  Tae-Hwan Yoon  ;  Yong-Min Chun 
 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE, Vol.51(4) : 885-892, 2023-03 
Journal Title
Issue Date
Cohort Studies ; Humans ; Imaging, Three-Dimensional ; Joint Instability* / diagnosis ; Retrospective Studies ; Shoulder ; Shoulder Joint* / diagnostic imaging ; Tomography, X-Ray Computed / methods
best-fit circle ; computed tomography ; glenoid bone loss ; glenoid labrum ; shoulder instability
Background: No study has evaluated whether best-fit circles based on glenoids with defects accurately represent normal inferior glenoids before injury. Purpose: To investigate whether the best-fit circles on the affected side with a glenoid defect can accurately represent native glenoids before injury. Study Design: Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 3. Methods: This retrospective study included 58 patients with unilateral recurrent anterior shoulder instability. First, we compared the diameter of best-fit circles based on affected and unaffected glenoids. Glenoid defect sizes based on each best-fit circle were then calculated and compared. Second, we created serial virtual glenoid defects (10%, 15%, 20%, 25%) on unaffected glenoids and compared diameters of best-fit circles on the glenoids before and after virtual defects. We also analyzed and compared the size of virtual and calculated glenoid defects. Bland-Altman plots and intraclass coefficients (ICCs) were used to compare and analyze agreement of measurements. After categorization of glenoid defects based on clinical cutoff values, Cohen kappa and percentage agreement were calculated. Results: The diameter of 55.2% (32/58) of best-fit circles from affected glenoids over- or underestimated the diameter on the unaffected side by >5%. In 28 of the 32 patients, the diameter of the affected side circle was overestimated. Consequently, 41.4% (24/58) of glenoid defects were over- or underestimated by >5%. In 19 of the 24 patients, the glenoid defect from the affected side was >5% larger. ICCs between sides for best-fit circle diameters and defect sizes were 0.632 and 0.800, respectively. Agreement of glenoid defect size between sides was 58.6% (34/58) overall, but when the defect was >= 10%, agreement decreased to 32.3% (10/31). Among 232 glenoids with virtual defects created from 58 normal glenoids, the diameter of 31.0% (72/232) of best-fit circles and the size of 11.6% (27/232) of defects were over- or underestimated by >5%. Conclusion: When assessing glenoid defects in anterior shoulder instability, best-fit circles based on affected glenoids do not always represent the native glenoid and may thus lead to inaccurate circle sizes and defect estimates.
Full Text
Appears in Collections:
1. College of Medicine (의과대학) > Dept. of Orthopedic Surgery (정형외과학교실) > 1. Journal Papers
Yonsei Authors
Do, Woo Sung(도우성)
Yoon, Tae Hwan(윤태환) ORCID logo https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2859-5240
Lim, Joon Ryul(임준열) ORCID logo https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0123-7136
Chun, Yong Min(천용민) ORCID logo https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8147-6136
사서에게 알리기


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.