Advertisement

Use of the Contralateral Glenoid for Calculation of Glenoid Bone Loss: A Cadaveric Anthropometric Study

Published:February 10, 2020DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2020.01.049

      Purpose

      The purpose of this study was to determine if there are significant side-to-side anthropometric differences between paired glenoids.

      Methods

      Forty-six matched-pair cadaver glenoids were harvested, and their glenoid heights (GHs) and glenoid widths (GWs) were measured with digital calipers. The glenoid surface area was calculated using the standard assumption that the inferior two-thirds of the glenoid is a perfect circle.

      Results

      There was a statistically significant difference between matched-pair GHs of 0.96 ± 3.07 mm (P = .020) and GWs of 0.46 ± 1.64 mm (P = .033). There was a significant difference of glenoid cavity area of 20.30 ± 81.53 mm2 (P = .044), or a difference of ∼3%. A total of 4 of 46 pairs of glenoids (8.6%) showed a difference in width >3 mm.

      Conclusions

      This study demonstrates the fallacy of use of the contralateral glenoid in measuring glenoid bone loss. Although many paired samples exhibited similar side-to-side glenoid measurements, the number of cadaveric pairs that showed differences of >3 mm was substantial. Caution should be taken when using calculation methods that include this assumption for surgical decision making, as surface area, GW, and GH were all shown to have statistically significant side-to-side differences in their measurements.

      Clinical relevance

      Many methods exist for measuring glenoid bone loss after anterior shoulder dislocation, but some of the current methods may be inaccurate and lead to unreliable estimations.
      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 access
      One-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 Arthroscopy
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Aronen J.G.
        • Regan K.
        Decreasing the incidence of recurrence of first time anterior shoulder dislocations with rehabilitation.
        Am J Sports Med. 1984; 12: 283-291
        • Di Giacomo G.
        • Piscitelli L.
        • Pugliese M.
        The role of bone in glenohumeral stability.
        EFORT Open Rev. 2018; 3: 632-640
        • Itoi E.
        ‘On-track’ and ‘off-track’ shoulder lesions.
        EFORT Open Rev. 2017; 2: 343-351
        • Itoi E.
        • Lee S.B.
        • Berglund L.J.
        • Berge L.L.
        • An K.N.
        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: 35-46
        • Balg F.
        • Boileau P.
        The instability severity index score. A simple pre-operative score to select patients for arthroscopic or open shoulder stabilisation.
        J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007; 89: 1470-1477
        • Burkhart S.S.
        • De Beer J.F.
        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
        • Lo I.K.
        • Parten P.M.
        • Burkhart S.S.
        The inverted pear glenoid: An indicator of significant glenoid bone loss.
        Arthroscopy. 2004; 20: 169-174
        • Charousset C.
        • Beauthier V.
        • Bellaiche L.
        • et al.
        Can we improve radiological analysis of osseous lesions in chronic anterior shoulder instability?.
        Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2010; 96: S88-S93
        • Sommaire C.
        • Penz C.
        • Clavert P.
        • Klouche S.
        • Hardy P.
        • Kempf J.F.
        Recurrence after arthroscopic Bankart repair: Is quantitative radiological analysis of bone loss of any predictive value?.
        Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2012; 98: 514-519
        • Huijsmans P.E.
        • Haen P.S.
        • Kidd M.
        • Dhert W.J.
        • van der Hulst V.P.
        • Willems W.J.
        Quantification of a glenoid defect with three-dimensional computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging: A cadaveric study.
        J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007; 16: 803-809
        • Lee R.K.
        • Griffith J.F.
        • Tong M.M.
        • Sharma N.
        • Yung P.
        Glenoid bone loss: Assessment with MR imaging.
        Radiology. 2013; 267: 496-502
        • Itoi E.
        • Lee S.B.
        • Amrami K.K.
        • Wenger D.E.
        • An K.N.
        Quantitative assessment of classic anteroinferior bony Bankart lesions by radiography and computed tomography.
        Am J Sports Med. 2003; 31: 112-118
        • Magarelli N.
        • Milano G.
        • Sergio P.
        • Santagada D.A.
        • Fabbriciani C.
        • Bonomo L.
        Intra-observer and interobserver reliability of the ‘Pico’ computed tomography method for quantification of glenoid bone defect in anterior shoulder instability.
        Skeletal Radiol. 2009; 38: 1071-1075
        • Shijith K.P.
        • Sood M.
        • Sud A.D.
        • Ghai A.
        Is CT scan a predictor of instability in recurrent dislocation shoulder?.
        Chin J Traumatol. 2019; 22: 177-181
        • Bishop J.Y.
        • Jones G.L.
        • Rerko M.A.
        • Donaldson C.
        • Group M.S.
        3-D CT is the most reliable imaging modality when quantifying glenoid bone loss.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013; 47: 1251-1256
        • Dumont G.D.
        • Russell R.D.
        • Browne M.G.
        • Robertson W.J.
        Area-based determination of bone loss using the glenoid arc angle.
        Arthroscopy. 2012; 28: 1030-1035
        • Hamamoto J.T.
        • Leroux T.
        • Chahla J.
        • et al.
        Assessment and evaluation of glenoid bone loss.
        Arthrosc Tech. 2016; 5: e947-e951
        • Bakshi N.K.
        • Patel I.
        • Jacobson J.A.
        • Debski R.E.
        • Sekiya J.K.
        Comparison of 3-dimensional computed tomography-based measurement of glenoid bone loss with arthroscopic defect size estimation in patients with anterior shoulder instability.
        Arthroscopy. 2015; 31: 1880-1885
        • Milano G.
        • Saccomanno M.F.
        • Magarelli N.
        • Bonomo L.
        Analysis of agreement between computed tomography measurements of glenoid bone defects in anterior shoulder instability with and without comparison with the contralateral shoulder.
        Am J Sports Med. 2015; 43: 2918-2926
        • Kwon Y.W.
        • Powell K.A.
        • Yum J.K.
        • Brems J.J.
        • Iannotti J.P.
        Use of three-dimensional computed tomography for the analysis of the glenoid anatomy.
        J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005; 14: 85-90
        • Detterline A.J.
        • Provencher M.T.
        • Ghodadra N.
        • Bach Jr., B.R.
        • Romeo A.A.
        • Verma N.N.
        A new arthroscopic technique to determine anterior-inferior glenoid bone loss: Validation of the secant chord theory in a cadaveric model.
        Arthroscopy. 2009; 25: 1249-1256
        • Parada S.A.
        • Eichinger J.K.
        • Dumont G.D.
        • et al.
        Accuracy and reliability of a simple calculation for measuring glenoid bone loss on 3-dimensional computed tomography scans.
        Arthroscopy. 2018; 34: 84-92
        • Chuang T.Y.
        • Adams C.R.
        • Burkhart S.S.
        Use of preoperative three-dimensional computed tomography to quantify glenoid bone loss in shoulder instability.
        Arthroscopy. 2008; 24: 376-382
        • Griffith J.F.
        • Antonio G.E.
        • Tong C.W.
        • Ming C.K.
        Anterior shoulder dislocation: Quantification of glenoid bone loss with CT.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003; 180: 1423-1430
        • Scalise J.J.
        • Bryan J.
        • Polster J.
        • Brems J.J.
        • Iannotti J.P.
        Quantitative analysis of glenoid bone loss in osteoarthritis using three-dimensional computed tomography scans.
        J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008; 17: 328-335
        • Shin S.J.
        • Koh Y.W.
        • Bui C.
        • et al.
        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: 2784-2791
        • Shaha J.S.
        • Cook J.B.
        • Song D.J.
        • et al.
        Redefining “critical” bone loss in shoulder instability: Functional outcomes worsen with “subcritical” bone loss.
        Am J Sports Med. 2015; 43: 1719-1725
        • Oladipo G.S.
        • Frederick E.
        • Akani L.G.
        Determination of handedness: An anthropometric evaluation of the glenoid cavity.
        Ann Bioanthropol. 2016; 4: 20-25
        • Walters J.
        • Koo W.W.
        • Bush A.
        • Hammami M.
        Effect of hand dominance on bone mass measurement in sedentary individuals.
        J Clin Densitom. 1998; 1: 359-367
        • Eidson C.A.
        • Jenkins G.R.
        • Yuen H.K.
        • et al.
        Investigation of the relationship between anthropometric measurements and maximal handgrip strength in young adults.
        Work. 2017; 57: 3-8
        • Katayose M.
        • Magee D.J.
        The cross-sectional area of supraspinatus as measured by diagnostic ultrasound.
        J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2001; 83: 565-568
        • Ok N.
        • Agladioglu K.
        • Gungor H.R.
        • et al.
        Relationship of side dominance and ultrasonographic measurements of pronator quadratus muscle along with handgrip and pinch strength.
        Med Ultrason. 2016; 18: 170-176
        • Jeske H.C.
        • Oberthaler M.
        • Klingensmith M.
        • et al.
        Normal glenoid rim anatomy and the reliability of shoulder instability measurements based on intrasite correlation.
        Surg Radiol Anat. 2009; 31: 623-625
        • Rerko M.A.
        • Pan X.
        • Donaldson C.
        • Jones G.L.
        • Bishop J.Y.
        Comparison of various imaging techniques to quantify glenoid bone loss in shoulder instability.
        J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013; 22: 528-534
        • Gross D.J.
        • Golijanin P.
        • Dumont G.D.
        • et al.
        The effect of sagittal rotation of the glenoid on axial glenoid width and glenoid version in computed tomography scan imaging.
        J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016; 25: 61-68
        • Lacheta L.
        • Herbst E.
        • Voss A.
        • et al.
        Insufficient consensus regarding circle size and bone loss width using the ratio—“best fit circle”—method even with three-dimensional computed tomography.
        Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2019; 27: 3222-3229