Parada Stephen A, Jones Matthew C, DeFoor Mikalyn T, Griswold B Gage, Roberts Aaron D, Provencher Matthew T
Department of Orthopaedics, Medical College of Georgia at Augusta University Medical Center, Augusta, GA, USA.
School of Medicine, Medical College of Georgia at Augusta University, Augusta, GA, USA.
J Orthop. 2020 Sep 22;22:402-407. doi: 10.1016/j.jor.2020.09.016. eCollection 2020 Nov-Dec.
Two glenoid bone loss calculations are compared across a range of anatomic glenoid sizes.
20 cadaveric paired glenoid diameters were measured to create glenoid models with bone loss calculated in 1 mm linear increments up to 50% bone loss comparing the linear measurement percentage (LMP) to the circle line method (CLM) gold standard.
The LMP overestimates glenoid bone loss at every potential 1 mm increment across each glenoid model until bone loss reaches 50%.
The widely-used LMP method overestimates bone loss compared to a gold standard potentially misguiding surgeons towards bony reconstruction in shoulder instability during preoperative planning.
在一系列解剖学上不同大小的肩胛盂上比较两种肩胛盂骨丢失量的计算方法。
测量20对尸体肩胛盂的直径,以创建肩胛盂模型,计算骨丢失量,骨丢失量以1毫米的线性增量递增,直至达到50%的骨丢失,将线性测量百分比(LMP)与作为金标准的环线法(CLM)进行比较。
在每个肩胛盂模型中,直至骨丢失达到50%之前,LMP在每1毫米的潜在增量处均高估了肩胛盂骨丢失量。
与金标准相比,广泛使用的LMP方法高估了骨丢失量,这可能会在术前规划期间误导外科医生在肩关节不稳时进行骨重建。