Disagreement Between the Accepted Best-Fit Circle Method to Calculate Bone Loss Between Injured and Uninjured Shoulders. Issue 4 (March 2023)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Do, Woo-Sung; Kim, Joo-Hyung; Lim, Joon-Ryul; Yoon, Tae-Hwan; Chun, Yong-Min
• Is Part Of: American journal of sports medicine. Volume 51:Issue 4(2023)
• Page Start: 885
• Page End: 892
• Publication Date: 2023-03
• Subjects: shoulder instability -- glenoid labrum -- computed tomography -- best-fit circle -- glenoid bone loss; Sports medicine -- Periodicals; Sports injuries -- Periodicals; Orthopedic surgery -- Periodicals; 617.102705
• DOI: 10.1177/03635465221149743
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0363-5465

Abstract

Background: No study has evaluated whether best-fit circles based on glenoids with defects accurately represent normal inferior glenoids before injury. Purpose: To investigate whether the best-fit circles on the affected side with a glenoid defect can accurately represent native glenoids before injury. Study Design: Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 3. Methods: This retrospective study included 58 patients with unilateral recurrent anterior shoulder instability. First, we compared the diameter of best-fit circles based on affected and unaffected glenoids. Glenoid defect sizes based on each best-fit circle were then calculated and compared. Second, we created serial virtual glenoid defects (10%, 15%, 20%, 25%) on unaffected glenoids and compared diameters of best-fit circles on the glenoids before and after virtual defects. We also analyzed and compared the size of virtual and calculated glenoid defects. Bland-Altman plots and intraclass coefficients (ICCs) were used to compare and analyze agreement of measurements. After categorization of glenoid defects based on clinical cutoff values, Cohen κ and percentage agreement were calculated. Results: The diameter of 55.2% (32/58) of best-fit circles from affected glenoids over- or underestimated the diameter on the unaffected side by >5%. In 28 of the 32 patients, the diameter of the affected side circle was overestimated. Consequently, 41.4% (24/58) of glenoid defects were over- or underestimated by >5%. In 19 of the 24 patients, the glenoid defect from the affected side was >5% larger. ICCs between sides for best-fit circle diameters and defect sizes were 0.632 and 0.800, respectively. Agreement of glenoid defect size between sides was 58.6% (34/58) overall, but when the defect was ≥10%, agreement decreased to 32.3% (10/31). Among 232 glenoids with virtual defects created from 58 normal glenoids, the diameter of 31.0% (72/232) of best-fit circles and the size of 11.6% (27/232) of defects were over- or underestimated by >5%. Conclusion: When assessing glenoid defects in anterior shoulder instability, best-fit circles based on affected glenoids do not always represent the native glenoid and may thus lead to inaccurate circle sizes and defect estimates.