Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 2, 2026
08:52
Software-Assisted Quantitative Measurement of Osteoarthritic Subchondral Bone Thickness
Published on: March 18, 2022
2.6K
Comparison of two different measurement methods to determine glenoid bone defects: area or width?
Egemen Altan1, Mehmet Ugur Ozbaydar2, Murat Tonbul3
1Orthopaedics and Traumatology Department, Selcuk University Medical Faculty, Konya, Turkey.
Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery
|March 4, 2014
Summary
Accurate measurement of glenoid bone loss in shoulder instability is crucial. Linear measurements at the 4-o'clock position offer a practical and highly correlated method for estimating defects, especially after arthroscopic Bankart repair.
Area of Science:
- Orthopedic Surgery
- Radiology
- Biomedical Engineering
Background:
- Recurrent anterior shoulder dislocation can lead to glenoid bone loss.
- Accurate measurement of glenoid defects is essential for surgical planning and outcomes.
- Two primary techniques exist for measuring glenoid bone loss: linear and surface area measurements.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the accuracy and correlation of linear versus surface area measurement techniques for glenoid defects.
- To identify the most reliable method for quantifying bone loss in patients with anterior shoulder instability.
Main Methods:
- Analysis of 36 patients who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair for anterior shoulder instability.
- Retrospective review of 3D computed tomography (CT) images to assess glenoid defects.
- Comparison of a linear measurement (glenoid index) with a surface area measurement method.
- Inclusion of 3 additional diameters and their average values for comparison with surface measurements.
- Utilized Pearson correlation coefficient (r) to assess the relationship between methods.
Main Results:
- A strong correlation (r=0.915) was observed between methods for defects <6% of the inferior glenoid circle.
- Correlation decreased significantly (r=0.343) for bone loss >14% of the inferior glenoid circle.
- The average of 4 diameters (r=0.964) and the 4-o'clock linear measurement (r=0.860) showed the highest correlations with actual defects.
- Crescent-shaped defects exhibited lower correlation (r=0.679) between measurement techniques.
Conclusions:
- While average diameter measurements offer the best correlation, linear measurement at the 4-o'clock position is a practical and reliable method for estimating glenoid bone loss.
- This linear method provides a high correlation between measurement techniques, aiding clinical decision-making in managing shoulder instability.
- The findings support the use of specific linear measurements for consistent and accurate assessment of glenoid bone loss in clinical practice.
