Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

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

2019; Elsevier BV; Volume: 29; Issue: 3 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1016/j.jse.2019.07.027

1532-6500

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

Orthopedic Surgery and Rehabilitation

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. 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. 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). 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. The contralateral comparison method was more reliable than the best-fit circle method for quantifying the amount of glenoid bone loss.