Comparison of two different measurement methods to determine glenoid bone defects: area or width?

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.contributor.authorAltan, Egemen
dc.contributor.authorOzbaydar, Mehmet Ugur
dc.contributor.authorTonbul, Murat
dc.contributor.authorYalcin, Levent
dc.date.accessioned2020-03-26T18:49:51Z
dc.date.available2020-03-26T18:49:51Z
dc.date.issued2014
dc.departmentSelçuk Üniversitesien_US
dc.description.abstractBackground: This study compared two different techniques that have been used to measure the glenoids of patients with recurrent anterior shoulder dislocation. Methods: We analyzed 36 patients who had received arthroscopic Bankart repair for anterior shoulder instability. Retrospectively, 3-dimensional computed tomography images of both shoulders were available for these patients. Two measurement methods were compared to determine the glenoid defects. One of these techniques is based on linear measurement, previously defined as the glenoid index. The other method is based on surface area measurement. Subsequently, 3 more diameters and the average values obtained from these diameters were compared with the surface measurement method. Pearson correlation coefficient (r) was assessed to determine the relationship. Results: There was an almost perfect relationship between measurement methods when the defect area was less than 6% of the inferior glenoid circle (r, 0.915; P < .001). This relation decreased and the difference became more pronounced (r, 0.343; P=.657) when the bone loss exceeded 14% of the inferior glenoid circle. The highest correlations with the actual defects were the average values obtained from 4 different diameters (r, 0.964; P < .001) and the 4-o'clock position of the single diameter measurements (r, 0.860; P=.001). In addition, 11 patients had crescent-like defects, demonstrating a relatively low correlation between the measurement methods (r, 0.679; P=.021). Conclusion: Although the best correlation was achieved from average values obtained from different diameter positions, in practical use, we advise a linear measurement to estimate the glenoid bone loss at the 4-o'clock position to achieve a high correlation between the measurement techniques. Level of evidence: Level III, Diagnostic Study. (C) 2014 Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Board of Trustees.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.jse.2013.11.029en_US
dc.identifier.endpage1222en_US
dc.identifier.issn1058-2746en_US
dc.identifier.issue8en_US
dc.identifier.pmid24581417en_US
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ1en_US
dc.identifier.startpage1215en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2013.11.029
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12395/30697
dc.identifier.volume23en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000341135000024en_US
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ1en_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Scienceen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopusen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMeden_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherMOSBY-ELSEVIERen_US
dc.relation.ispartofJOURNAL OF SHOULDER AND ELBOW SURGERYen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.selcuk20240510_oaigen_US
dc.subjectGlenoid bone lossen_US
dc.subjectinstabilityen_US
dc.subjectglenoid indexen_US
dc.subjectarthroscopyen_US
dc.subjectshoulderen_US
dc.subjectPico methoden_US
dc.titleComparison of two different measurement methods to determine glenoid bone defects: area or width?en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayın Koleksiyonu
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu