Purpose
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the measured dimensions of the normal glenoid
on sagittal magnetic resonance (MR) imaging to determine whether a fixed ratio of
glenoid length and width can be determined.
Methods
MR images of 90 glenoids in 84 patients were analyzed. The mean age was 54.8 years,
with 44 male and 40 female patients. Glenoid length and width at the widest dimension
were measured and recorded by 3 independent examiners. The ratio of length to width
and the ratio of the length of the superior pole at the widest point to the total
length were calculated. Intraclass correlation coefficients, Spearman and Pearson
correlations, regression analysis with cross validation, and coefficients of variation
were calculated.
Results
The mean glenoid length was 37.5 ± 3.8 mm, whereas the mean width was 24.4 ± 2.9 mm.
The mean ratio of length to width was 1.55 ± 0.1, whereas the mean ratio of the distance
from the superior pole to the widest point to the total glenoid length was 0.64 ±
0.03. The calculated ratios were less variable than the absolute length and width.
Cross validation of length for width showed a 95% prediction band width of 4.48 mm,
with an average absolute error of prediction of 1.46 mm, and was equally specific
when separated by gender. The width was equal to 0.65 times the length.
Conclusions
Measurement of glenoid length and width using MR imaging results in a consistent ratio
of length to width independent of patient age and gender, where the width was equal
to 0.65 times the length at a point two-thirds along the inferosuperior axis.
Level of Evidence
Level IV, case series.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to ArthroscopyAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Histologic analysis of bony Bankart lesions in recurrent anterior instability of the shoulder.J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006; 15: 218-223
- Reasons for failure after surgical repair of anterior shoulder instability.J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2004; 13: 279-285
- Risk factors for recurrence of shoulder instability after arthroscopic Bankart repair.J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006; 88: 1755-1763
- Articular arc length mismatch as a cause of failed Bankart repair.Arthroscopy. 2000; 16: 740-744
- Traumatic glenohumeral bone defects and their relationship to failure of arthroscopic Bankart repairs: Significance of the inverted-pear glenoid and the humeral engaging Hill-Sachs lesion.Arthroscopy. 2000; 16: 677-694
- Recurrent shoulder instability: Current concepts for evaluation and management of glenoid bone loss.J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010; 92: 133-151
- The normal glenohumeral relationships. An anatomical study of one hundred and forty shoulders.J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1992; 74: 491-500
- About the variability of the shape of the glenoid cavity.Surg Radiol Anat. 2004; 26: 54-59
- The shape of the inferior part of the glenoid: A cadaveric study.J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006; 15: 759-763
- Glenoid rim morphology in recurrent anterior glenohumeral instability.J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003; 85: 878-884
- Quantifying glenoid bone loss arthroscopically in shoulder instability.Arthroscopy. 2002; 18: 488-491
- Quantitative assessment of classic anteroinferior bony Bankart lesions by radiography and computed tomography.Am J Sports Med. 2003; 31: 112-118
- Location of the glenoid defect in shoulders with recurrent anterior dislocation.Am J Sports Med. 2005; 33: 889-893
- Area-based determination of bone loss using the glenoid arc angle.Arthroscopy. 2012; 28: 1030-1035
Article Info
Publication History
Published online: May 08, 2014
Accepted:
March 10,
2014
Received:
March 6,
2013
Footnotes
The authors report the following potential conflict of interest: N.N.V. received royalities/stock options (Smith & Nephew), did consulting (Smith & Nephew, Arthrosurface); A.R.R. received royalities/stock options (Arthrex), did consulting (Arthrex); B.J.C. received royalities/stock options (Arthrex, DJO), did consulting (Arthrex, Zimmer, Depuy).
Identification
Copyright
© 2014 Arthroscopy Association of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
