Comparison of best-fit circle versus contralateral comparison methods to quantify glenoid bone defect

Karthikraj Kuberakani, Kazuho Aizawa, Nobuyuki Yamamoto, Kiyotsugu Shinagawa, Takayuki Suzuki, Taku Hatta, Jun Kawakami, Eiji Itoi

研究成果: Article査読

2 被引用数 (Scopus)

抄録

Background: Several measurement techniques have been reported to quantify glenoid bone defect in patients with anterior shoulder instability. Among them, the method that uses a best-fit circle and another that uses the contralateral glenoid as a control are most commonly used. However, to our knowledge, no study has been reported that compared the reliability of these methods. The purpose of this study, therefore, was to determine which of these methods has higher reproducibility. Method: In this study, 3-dimensional computed tomography data from 94 patients (mean age 29 years) with unilateral anterior shoulder instability were used. Three examiners measured the glenoid bone defect of each patient 3 times using 2 techniques: the best-fit circle method and the contralateral comparison method. Intra- and interobserver reliabilities were measured using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Results: The intraobserver reliability was found to be 0.91 for the best-fit circle method and 0.98 for the contralateral comparison method. The interobserver reliability was 0.77 for the best-fit circle method and 0.88 for the contralateral method. The percentage of glenoid defect was 11.5% when using the best-fit circle and 10.7% with the contralateral method. Conclusion: The contralateral comparison method was more reliable than the best-fit circle method for quantifying the amount of glenoid bone loss.

本文言語English
ページ(範囲)502-507
ページ数6
ジャーナルJournal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery
29
3
DOI
出版ステータスPublished - 2020 3

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine

フィンガープリント 「Comparison of best-fit circle versus contralateral comparison methods to quantify glenoid bone defect」の研究トピックを掘り下げます。これらがまとまってユニークなフィンガープリントを構成します。

引用スタイル