Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Original Paper

Reliability of measurements performed on two dimensional and three dimensional computed tomography in glenoid assessment for instability

Authors: Anna Maria Kubicka, Jakub Stefaniak, Przemysław Lubiatowski, Jan Długosz, Marcin Dzianach, Marcin Redman, Janusz Piontek, Leszek Romanowski

Published in: International Orthopaedics | Issue 12/2016

Abstract

Purpose

The main purpose of this study is to establish which of two methods is more reliable in glenoid assessment for instability in pre-operative planning. Accordingly, we have studied the intra- and inter-observer reliability of glenoid parameters with the use of two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) reconstructed computed tomography (CT) images.

Methods

One hundred glenoids were measured with the use of 2D-CT and 3D-CT (in 3D orientation) by two independent observers (one experienced and one inexperienced). Measurements were repeated after one week for 30 randomly selected glenoids.

Results

The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) for inter-observer reliability was significantly greater for 3D-CT (0.811 to 0.915) than for 2D-CT (0.523 to 0.925). All intra-observer reliability values for 3D-CT were near perfect (0.835 to 0.997), while those for 2D-CT were less reliable (0.704 to 0.960). A dependent t-test showed that, for both observers, almost all glenoid parameters (except R and d) differed significantly (p < 0.05) between 2D and 3D measurement methods.

Conclusions

Therefore, it can be concluded that 3D glenoid reconstructions are more reliable for glenoid bone loss assessment than 2D-CT. The results suggest that quantifying a glenoid defect with the use of 2D image only—even if performed by an experienced orthopaedic surgeon—is prone to errors. Differences in measurements between and within observers can be explained by plane setting and identifying glenoid rim in 2D-CT. Accordingly, we recommend that glenoid measurements should be performed in 3D orientation using 3D reconstruction obtained from CT images for pre-operative assessments, which are crucial for surgical planning.

Burkhart SS, De Beer JF (2000) Traumatic glenohumeral bone defects and their relationship to failure of arthroscopic Bankart repairs: significance of the inverted-pear glenoid and the humeral engaging Hill-Sachs lesion. Arthroscopy 16:677–694CrossRefPubMed

Itoi E, Lee SB, Berglund LJ et al (2000) The effect of a glenoid defect on anteroinferior stability of the shoulder after Bankart repair: a cadaveric study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 82:35–46. doi:10.1002/sim.5330 CrossRefPubMed

Boileau P, Villalba M, Héry J-Y et al (2006) Risk factors for recurrence of shoulder instability after arthroscopic Bankart repair. J Bone Joint Surg 88:1755–1763. doi:10.2106/JBJS.E.00817 PubMed

Inui H, Sugamoto K, Miyamoto T et al (2002) Glenoid shape in atraumatic posterior instability of the shoulder. Clin Orthop Relat Res 403:87–92CrossRef

Piasecki DP, Verma NN, Romeo AA et al (2009) Glenoid bone deficiency in recurrent anterior shoulder instability: diagnosis and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 17:482–493CrossRefPubMed

Churchill RS, Brems JJ, Kotschi H (2001) Glenoid size, inclination, and version: an anatomic study. J Shoulder Elb Surg 10:327–332. doi:10.1067/mse.2001.115269 CrossRef

Iannotti JP, Ricchetti ET, Rodriguez EJ, Bryan JA (2013) Development and validation of a new method of 3-dimensional assessment of glenoid and humeral component position after total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elb Surg 22:1413–1422. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2013.01.005 CrossRef

Weishaupt D, Zanetti M, Nyffeler RW et al (2000) Posterior glenoid rim deficiency in recurrent (atraumatic) posterior shoulder instability. Skelet Radiol 29:204–210CrossRef

Nyffeler RW, Jost B, Pfirrmann CWA, Gerber C (2003) Measurement of glenoid version: conventional radiographs versus computed tomography scans. J Shoulder Elb Surg 12:493–496. doi:10.1016/S1058274603001812 CrossRef

10.

Rozing PM, Obermann WR (1999) Osteometry of the glenohumeral joint. J Shoulder Elb Surg 8:438–442CrossRef

11.

Sullivan DO, Bokor DJ, Hazan J (1999) Variability computed of measurement of glenoid tomography scan version on. J Shoulder Elb Surg 8:595–598. doi:10.1016/S1058-2746(99)90096-4 CrossRef

12.

Saliken DJ, Bornes TD, Bouliane MJ et al (2015) Imaging methods for quantifying glenoid and Hill-Sachs bone loss in traumatic instability of the shoulder: a scoping review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 18:164. doi:10.1186/s12891-015-0607-1 CrossRef

13.

Bishop JY, Jones GL, Rerko MA, Donaldson C (2013) 3-D CT is the most reliable imaging modality when quantifying glenoid bone loss shoulder. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471:1251–1256. doi:10.1007/s11999-012-2607-x CrossRefPubMed

14.

Engebretsen L, Craig E (1993) Radiologic features of shoulder instability. Clin Orthop Relat Res 291:29–44

15.

Rerko MA, Pan X, Donaldson C et al (2013) Comparison of various imaging techniques to quantify glenoid bone loss in shoulder instability. J Shoulder Elb Surg 22:528–534. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2012.05.034 CrossRef

16.

Paladini P, Singla R, Merolla G, Porcellini G (2016) Latarjet procedure: is the coracoid enough to restore the glenoid surface? Int Orthop. doi:10.1007/s00264-015-3093-z

17.

Gregory T, Hansen U, Khanna M et al (2014) A CT scan protocol for the detection of radiographic loosening of the glenoid component after total shoulder arthroplasty. Acta Orthop 85:91–96. doi:10.3109/17453674.2013.869653 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Lubiatowski P, Olczak I, Lisiewicz E et al (2013) Clinical and functional evaluation of patients after total elbow arthroplasty. Polish Orthop Traumatol 78:53–58

19.

Andrin J, Macaron C, Pottecher P et al (2015) Determination of a new computed tomography method for measuring the glenoid version and comparing with a reference method. Radio-anatomical and retrospective study. Int Orthop 40:525–529. doi:10.1007/s00264-015-2867-7 CrossRefPubMed

20.

Otto RJ, Virani NA, Levy JC et al (2013) Scapular fractures after reverse shoulder arthroplasty: evaluation of risk factors and the reliability of a proposed classification. J Shoulder Elb Surg 22:1514–1521. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2013.02.007 CrossRef

21.

Castricini R, Gasparini G, Di Luggo F et al (2013) Health-related quality of life and functionality after reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elb Surg 22:1639–1649. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2013.01.020 CrossRef

22.

Kwon YW, Powell KA, Yum JK et al (2005) Use of three-dimensional computed tomography for the analysis of the glenoid anatomy. J Shoulder Elb Surg 14:85–90. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2004.04.011 CrossRef

23.

Scalise JJ, Codsi MJ, Bryan J, Iannotti JP (2008) The three-dimensional glenoid vault model can estimate normal glenoid version in osteoarthritis. J Shoulder Elb Surg 17:487–491. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2007.09.006 CrossRef

24.

Hirschmann MT, Konala P, Amsler F et al (2011) The position and orientation of total knee replacement components: a comparison of conventional radiographs, transverse 2D-CT slices and 3D-CT reconstruction. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 93:629–633. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.93B5.25893 CrossRef

25.

Budge MD, Lewis GS, Schaefer E et al (2011) Comparison of standard two-dimensional and three-dimensional corrected glenoid version measurements. J Shoulder Elb Surg 20:577–583. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2010.11.003 CrossRef

26.

Hoenecke HR, Hermida JC, Flores-Hernandez C, D’Lima DD (2010) Accuracy of CT-based measurements of glenoid version for total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elb Surg 19:166–171. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2009.08.009 CrossRef

27.

Beuckelaers E, Jacxsens M, Van Tongel A, De Wilde LF (2014) Three-dimensional computed tomography scan evaluation of the pattern of erosion in type B glenoids. J Shoulder Elb Surg 23:109–116. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2013.04.009 CrossRef

28.

Barchilon VS, Kotz E, Barchilon B et al (2008) A simple method for quantitative evaluation of the missing area of the anterior glenoid in anterior instability of the glenohumeral joint. Skelet Radiol 37:731–736. doi:10.1007/s00256-008-0506-8 CrossRef

29.

Griffith JF, Antonio GE, Tong CWC, Ming CK (2003) Anterior shoulder dislocation: quantification of glenoid bone loss with CT. Am J Roentgenol 180:1423–1430. doi:10.2214/ajr.180.5.1801423 CrossRef

30.

Huijsmans PE, Haen PS, Kidd M et al (2007) Quantification of a glenoid defect with three-dimensional computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging: a cadaveric study. J Shoulder Elb Surg 16:803–809. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2007.02.115 CrossRef

31.

De Filippo M, Saba L, Negrini G et al (2015) Inter-observer agreement of CT measurement of the glenoid bone surface by the CT Pico method: comparison with laser in a cadaveric model. Skelet Radiol 44:1491–1497. doi:10.1007/s00256-015-2199-0 CrossRef

32.

Prescher A, Klümpen T (1995) Does the area of the glenoid cavity of the scapula show sexual dimorphism? J Anat 186:223–226PubMedPubMedCentral

33.

Dabbs GR, Moore-Jansen PH (2010) A method for estimating sex using metric analysis of the scapula. J Forensic Sci 55:149–152. doi:10.1111/j.1556-4029.2009.01232.x CrossRefPubMed

34.

Papaioannou V, Kranioti EF, Joveneaux P et al (2012) Sexual dimorphism of the scapula and the clavicle in a contemporary Greek population: applications in forensic identification. Forensic Sci Int 217:231.e1–231.e7. doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2011.11.010 CrossRef

35.

Bockmann B, Soschynski S, Lechler P et al (2016) Age-dependent variation of glenohumeral anatomy: a radiological study. Int Orthop 40:87–93. doi:10.1007/s00264-015-2863-y CrossRefPubMed

36.

Couteau B, Mansat P, Darmana R et al (2000) Morphological and mechanical analysis of the glenoid by 3D geometric reconstruction using computed tomography. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 15(Suppl 1):S8–S12CrossRef

37.

Graichen H, Koydl P, Zichner L (1999) Effectiveness of glenoid osteotomy in atraumatic posterior instability of the shoulder associated with excessive retroversion and flatness of the glenoid. Int Orthop 23:95–99. doi:10.1007/s002640050316 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

38.

Zeldith ML, Świderski DL, Sheets HD, Fink WL (2004) Geometric morphometrics for biologists: a primer. Elsevier, New York

39.

Gerber C, Nyffeler RW (2002) Classification of glenohumeral joint instability. Clin Orthop Relat Res 400:65–76CrossRef

40.

Moineau G, Levigne C, Boileau P et al (2012) Three-dimensional measurement method of arthritic glenoid cavity morphology: feasibility and reproducibility. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 98:S139–S145. doi:10.1016/j.otsr.2012.06.007 CrossRefPubMed

41.

Sugaya H, Moriishi J, Dohi M et al (2003) Glenoid rim morphology in recurrent anterior glenohumeral instability. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85:878–884CrossRefPubMed

42.

Magarelli N, Milano G, Sergio P et al (2009) Intra-observer and interobserver reliability of the “Pico” computed tomography method for quantification of glenoid bone defect in anterior shoulder instability. Skelet Radiol 38:1071–1075. doi:10.1007/s00256-009-0719-5 CrossRef

43.

Walter SD, Eliasziw M, Donner A (1998) Sample size and optimal designs for reliability studies. Stat Med 17:101–110CrossRefPubMed

44.

Parr WCH, Chamoli U, Jones A et al (2013) Finite element micro-modelling of a human ankle bone reveals the importance of the trabecular network to mechanical performance: new methods for the generation and comparison of 3D models. J Biomech 46:200–205. doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2012.11.011 CrossRefPubMed

45.

Diederichs G, Seim H, Meyer H et al (2008) CT-based patient-specific modeling of glenoid rim defects: a feasibility study. Am J Roentgenol 191:1406–1411. doi:10.2214/AJR.08.1091 CrossRef

46.

Ford JM, Decker SJ (2015) Computed tomography slice thickness and its effects on three-dimensional reconstruction of anatomical structures. J Forensic Radiol Imaging. doi:10.1016/j.jofri.2015.10.004

Title: Reliability of measurements performed on two dimensional and three dimensional computed tomography in glenoid assessment for instability
Authors: Anna Maria Kubicka
Jakub Stefaniak
Przemysław Lubiatowski
Jan Długosz
Marcin Dzianach
Marcin Redman
Janusz Piontek
Leszek Romanowski
Publication date: 01-12-2016
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: International Orthopaedics / Issue 12/2016
Print ISSN: 0341-2695
Electronic ISSN: 1432-5195
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-016-3253-9

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Reliability of measurements performed on two dimensional and three dimensional computed tomography in glenoid assessment for instability

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 12/2016

History of traction for treatment of lower limb fractures

Current standard rules of combined anteversion prevent prosthetic impingement but ignore osseous contact in total hip arthroplasty

Pigmented villonodular synovitis: a crowdsourcing study of two hundred and seventy two patients

Is tibial cut navigation alone sufficient in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty? Continuous series of fifty nine procedures

Is shoulder arthroplasty an option for charcot arthropathy?

Complications of elastic stable intramedullary nailing of femoral shaft fractures in children weighing fifty kilograms (one hundred and ten pounds) and more