Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 23, 2025
In Vivo Quantification of Hip Arthrokinematics during Dynamic Weight-bearing Activities using Dual Fluoroscopy
Published on: July 2, 2021
Glenoid Track Width Is Smaller Under Dynamic Conditions: An In Vivo Dual-Fluoroscopy Imaging Study
Chenliang Wu1, Yufan Wang2,3,4, Cong Wang2,3,4
1Department of Sports Medicine, Shanghai Sixth People's Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Background:
The glenoid track concept has been widely used to assess the risk of instability due to bipolar bone loss. The glenoid track width was commonly used as 83% of the glenoid width to determine if a lesion was on-track or off-track. However, the value was obtained under static conditions, and it may not be able to reflect the actual mechanism of traumatic dislocation during motion.
Purpose:
To compare the glenoid track width under dynamic and static conditions using a dual-fluoroscopic imaging system.
Study Design:
Controlled laboratory study.
Methods:
In total, 40 shoulders of 20 healthy volunteers were examined for both dynamic and static tests within a dual-fluoroscopic imaging system at 5 different arm positions: 30°, 60°, 90°, 120°, and 150° of abduction, keeping the shoulder at 90° of external rotation. The participants performed a fast horizontal arm backswing for dynamic tests while keeping their arm in maximum horizontal extension for static tests. Computed tomography scans were used to create 3-dimensional models of the humerus and scapula for 2-dimensional to 3-dimensional image registration. Magnetic resonance imaging scans were obtained to delineate the medial margin of the rotator cuff insertion. The glenoid track width was measured as the distance from the anterior rim of the glenoid to the medial margin of the rotator cuff insertion and compared between static and dynamic conditions.
Results:
The mean glenoid track widths at 30°, 60°, 90°, 120°, and 150° of abduction were significantly smaller under dynamic conditions (88%, 81%, 72%, 69%, and 68% of the glenoid width) than those under static conditions (101%, 92%, 84%, 78%, and 77% of the glenoid width) (all P < .001). The glenoid track width significantly decreased with the increasing abduction angles in the range of 30° to 120° under static conditions (all P < .003) and 30° to 90° under dynamic conditions (all P < .001).
Conclusion:
A smaller dynamic-based value should be considered for the glenoid track width when distinguishing on-track/off-track lesions. Clinical evidence is needed to establish the superiority of the dynamic-based value over the static-based value as an indicator for augmentation procedures.
Clinical Relevance:
Some off-track lesions might be misclassified as on-track lesions when the original commonly used static-based value of 83% is used as the glenoid track width.
