How does dynamic arthroscopic tracking compare with radiologic glenoid track for identification of on- and off-track lesions in anterior shoulder instability?

BACKGROUND

Current treatment paradigms for anterior shoulder instability are based on radiologic measurements of glenohumeral bone defects, and mathematical calculation of the glenoid track (GT) is used to classify lesions into on-track and off-track morphology. However, radiologic measurements have shown high variability, and GT widths under dynamic conditions have been reported to be significantly smaller than those under static radiologic conditions. The purpose of this study was to assess the reliability, reproducibility, and diagnostic validity of dynamic arthroscopic standardized tracking (DAST) in comparison to the gold-standard radiologic track measurement method for the identification of on- and off-track bony lesions in patients with anteroinferior shoulder instability.

METHODS

Between January 2018 and August 2022, 114 patients with traumatic anterior shoulder instability were evaluated using 3-T magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomography scans; glenoid bone loss, Hill-Sachs interval, GT, and Hill-Sachs occupancy ratio (HSO) were measured, and defects were classified as on-track or off-track defects and peripheral-track defects (based on HSO percentage) by 2 independent researchers. During arthroscopy, a standardized method (DAST method) was used by 2 independent observers to classify defects into on-track defects (central and peripheral) and off-track defects. Interobserver reliability of the DAST and radiologic methods was calculated using the κ statistic and reported as percentage agreement. Diagnostic validity (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value) of the DAST method was calculated using the radiologic track (HSO percentage) as the gold standard.

RESULTS

The radiologically measured mean glenoid bone loss percentage, Hill-Sachs interval, and HSO in off-track lesions were lower with the arthroscopic method (DAST) as compared with the radiologic method. The DAST method showed nearly perfect agreement between the 2 observers for the on-track/off-track classification (κ = 0.96, P < .001) and the on-track central or peripheral /off-track classification (κ = 0.88, P < .001). The radiologic method showed greater interobserver variability (κ = 0.31 and κ = 0.24, respectively) with only fair agreement for both classifications. Inter-method agreement varied between 71% and 79% (95% confidence interval, 62%-86%) between the 2 observers, and reliability was assessed as slight (κ = 0.16) to fair (κ = 0.38). Overall, for identification of an off-track lesion, the DAST method showed maximum specificity (81% and 78%) when radiologic peripheral-track lesions (HSO percentage of 75%-100%) were considered off-track and showed maximum sensitivity when arthroscopic peripheral-track lesions were classified as off-track.

CONCLUSION

Although inter-method agreement was low, a standardized arthroscopic tracking method (DAST method) showed superior interobserver agreement and reliability for lesion classification in comparison to the radiologic track method. Incorporating DAST into current algorithms may help reduce variability in surgical decision making.