Milano Giuseppe, Saccomanno Maristella F, Magarelli Nicola, Bonomo Lorenzo
Department of Orthopaedics, "A. Gemelli" University Hospital, Catholic University, Rome, Italy
Department of Orthopaedics, "A. Gemelli" University Hospital, Catholic University, Rome, Italy.
Am J Sports Med. 2015 Dec;43(12):2918-26. doi: 10.1177/0363546515608167. Epub 2015 Oct 15.
Computed tomography (CT) is frequently used to diagnose glenoid bone defects in anterior shoulder instability. The assessment of glenoid defects on 2-dimensional (2D) and 3-dimensional (3D) CT scans has been reported with and without a comparative study of the contralateral shoulder; however, no previous studies have analyzed if these 4 methods agree.
To estimate agreement between CT assessments of glenoid defects by examination of the affected shoulder alone and by comparison with the contralateral side on both 2D and 3D CT scans.
Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 2.
A total of 200 prospectively enlisted patients affected by unilateral anterior shoulder instability underwent CT of both shoulders. The area of the missing glenoid was calculated on 4 sets of CT scans (2D and 3D CT images with and without comparison with the contralateral shoulder) by using the circle method. Agreement between the 4 measurements in quantifying the bone defect was estimated according to the Bland-Altman method. Agreement between the 4 measurements in assessing the presence and type of defect (fracture or erosion) was analyzed with κ statistics.
Analysis of agreement between CT measurements in quantifying glenoid bone defects showed that the mean difference between the 4 measures was less than 1% of the area of the inferior glenoid in each pairwise comparison. Limits of agreement were always below the established acceptable limit of 5%. The assessment of the presence and type of bone defect showed strong to near-complete agreement between the 4 measurement methods.
CT assessments of glenoid bone defects with and without comparison with the contralateral shoulder showed very good agreement in identifying the size, presence, and type of defect in patients with anterior shoulder instability on both 2D and 3D CT scans.
计算机断层扫描(CT)常用于诊断前肩不稳中的肩胛盂骨缺损。已有关于二维(2D)和三维(3D)CT扫描评估肩胛盂缺损的报道,其中有或没有对侧肩的对比研究;然而,此前尚无研究分析这四种方法是否一致。
通过单独检查患侧肩以及在2D和3D CT扫描上与对侧进行比较,评估CT对肩胛盂缺损评估之间的一致性。
队列研究(诊断);证据等级,2级。
共有200例前瞻性纳入的单侧前肩不稳患者接受了双肩CT检查。通过圆形法在4组CT扫描(有和没有与对侧肩比较的2D和3D CT图像)上计算肩胛盂缺失面积。根据Bland-Altman方法评估这4种测量方法在量化骨缺损方面的一致性。使用κ统计分析这4种测量方法在评估缺损的存在和类型(骨折或侵蚀)方面的一致性。
CT测量在量化肩胛盂骨缺损方面的一致性分析表明,在每对比较中,这4种测量方法之间的平均差异小于肩胛盂下表面面积的1%。一致性界限始终低于既定的可接受限度5%。骨缺损的存在和类型评估显示,这4种测量方法之间具有强到近乎完全的一致性。
在2D和3D CT扫描上,无论是否与对侧肩比较,CT对前肩不稳患者肩胛盂骨缺损的评估在确定缺损大小、存在和类型方面显示出非常好的一致性。