Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 18, 2026
08:39
Longitudinal Micro-Computed Tomography Image Analysis for User-Defined Region of Interest in Critical-Sized Bone Defects
Published on: June 24, 2025
566
Comparison of best-fit circle versus contralateral comparison methods to quantify glenoid bone defect
Karthikraj Kuberakani1, Kazuho Aizawa2, Nobuyuki Yamamoto1
1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Tohoku University School of Medicine, Sendai, Japan.
Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery
|October 1, 2019
Summary
The contralateral comparison method demonstrated higher reliability for quantifying glenoid bone defects in shoulder instability compared to the best-fit circle method. This finding aids in more accurate assessments for patients.
Area of Science:
- Orthopedics
- Radiology
- Biomechanical analysis
Background:
- Glenoid bone defects are crucial in anterior shoulder instability.
- Common quantification methods include best-fit circle and contralateral comparison.
- Reliability comparison between these methods is lacking.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the reproducibility of the best-fit circle and contralateral comparison methods for glenoid bone defect quantification.
Main Methods:
- Utilized 3D CT data from 94 patients with unilateral anterior shoulder instability.
- Three examiners measured glenoid bone defects thrice using both methods.
- Intra- and interobserver reliabilities were assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC).
Main Results:
- Contralateral comparison method showed higher intraobserver reliability (0.98) than best-fit circle (0.91).
- Interobserver reliability was also superior for the contralateral method (0.88) versus best-fit circle (0.77).
- Mean defect percentages were 10.7% (contralateral) and 11.5% (best-fit circle).
Conclusions:
- The contralateral comparison method offers superior reliability for quantifying glenoid bone loss in shoulder instability.
- This method may provide more consistent and accurate assessments for clinical decision-making.
