Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Tripler Army Medical Center, Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S.A..
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Tripler Army Medical Center, Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S.A.
Arthroscopy. 2023 Jun;39(6):1394-1402. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2022.12.035. Epub 2023 Jan 13.
To determine the accuracy of glenoid bone loss measurement and the difference between 3 methods of measurement, as well as the measurements application to previously published studies.
A list of patients with anterior bony glenoid defects was created through a search of electronic medical records. Three surgeons reviewed each patient's advanced imaging (computed tomography [CT], 3-dimensional [3D] CT, or magnetic resonance imaging), and glenoid bone loss was measured by 3 different methods: (1) linear measurement percentile (LMP), (2) area measurement percentile (AMP), and (3) circle-line method (CLM). The intraclass correlation coefficients between reviewers and mathematical differences between measurement techniques were calculated.
The images of 125 patients with anterior glenoid bone loss were measured. For all imaging studies, the intraclass correlation coefficient was greatest with the AMP (0.738) and CT with 3D reconstruction (0.735). Within the entire sample, average bone loss measured 21.3% (range, 5.6%-43.5%) by the LMP method, 15.7% (range, 1.6%-42.2%) by the CLM, and 16.5% (range, 2.3%-40.3%) by the AMP method. On average, the difference between the LMP and AMP methods was 4.8%. When the AMP and LMP methods were compared, the greatest difference in measurement was 5.9%, and this occurred at an LMP of 19.1%, which was an AMP of 13.2%.
When measuring anterior glenoid bone loss, CT with 3D reconstruction and the AMP method have the greatest interobserver reliability. Furthermore, the greatest difference between the LMP and AMP methods occurs at an LMP between 18.3% and 20.0% and an AMP between 12.4% and 14.2%, with the difference ranging from 5.7% to 5.9%.
When measuring anterior glenoid bone loss, evaluation of CT with 3D reconstruction is more reliable than magnetic resonance imaging evaluation. Furthermore, the AMP method has the greatest interobserver reliability when compared with the LMP method and CLM.
确定肩胛盂骨丢失测量的准确性和 3 种测量方法之间的差异，并将这些测量应用于已发表的研究中。
通过电子病历搜索创建了一个具有前骨性肩胛盂缺损的患者列表。3 名外科医生分别对每位患者的影像学资料（计算机断层扫描[CT]、三维[3D]CT 或磁共振成像）进行了回顾，并采用 3 种不同的方法测量肩胛盂骨丢失：（1）线性测量百分位数（LMP）、（2）面积测量百分位数（AMP）和（3）圆线法（CLM）。计算了各观察者之间的组内相关系数和测量技术之间的数学差异。
对 125 例前肩胛盂骨丢失患者的图像进行了测量。对于所有影像学研究，AMP（0.738）和 CT 加 3D 重建（0.735）的组内相关系数最大。在整个样本中，LMP 法测量的平均骨丢失为 21.3%（范围，5.6%-43.5%），CLM 法为 15.7%（范围，1.6%-42.2%），AMP 法为 16.5%（范围，2.3%-40.3%）。平均而言，LMP 法与 AMP 法之间的差异为 4.8%。当比较 AMP 和 LMP 方法时，测量值的最大差异为 5.9%，发生在 LMP 为 19.1%时，AMP 为 13.2%。
在测量前肩胛盂骨丢失时，CT 加 3D 重建和 AMP 法具有最大的观察者间可靠性。此外，LMP 法和 AMP 法之间的最大差异发生在 LMP 在 18.3%到 20.0%之间，AMP 在 12.4%到 14.2%之间，差异在 5.7%到 5.9%之间。
在测量前肩胛盂骨丢失时，CT 加 3D 重建的评估比磁共振成像评估更可靠。此外，与 LMP 法和 CLM 法相比，AMP 法具有最大的观察者间可靠性。
