Reliability of Manual Measurements Versus Semiautomated Software for Glenoid Bone Loss Quantification in Patients With Anterior Shoulder Instability.

Autor:	Karpinski K; Centrum für Muskuloskeletale Chirurgie, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany., Akguen D; Centrum für Muskuloskeletale Chirurgie, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany., Gebauer H; Centrum für Muskuloskeletale Chirurgie, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany., Paksoy A; Centrum für Muskuloskeletale Chirurgie, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany., Lupetti M; ImFusion, Munich, Germany., Markova V; ImFusion, Munich, Germany., Zettinig O; ImFusion, Munich, Germany., Moroder P; Schulthess Klinik, Zürich, Switzerland.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine [Orthop J Sports Med] 2024 Feb 12; Vol. 12 (2), pp. 23259671231222938. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Feb 12 (Print Publication: 2024).
DOI:	10.1177/23259671231222938
Abstrakt:	Background: The presence of glenoid bone defects is indicative in the choice of treatment for patients with anterior shoulder instability. In contrast to traditional linear- and area-based measurements, techniques such as the consideration of glenoid concavity have been proposed and validated. Purpose: To compare the reliability of linear (1-dimensional [1D]), area (2-dimensional [2D]), and concavity (3-dimensional [3D]) measurements to quantify glenoid bone loss performed manually and to analyze how automated measurements affect reliability. Study Design: Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Computed tomography images of 100 patients treated for anterior shoulder instability with differently sized glenoid defects were evaluated independently by 2 orthopaedic surgeons manually using conventional software (OsiriX; Pixmeo) as well as automatically with a dedicated prototype software program (ImFusion Suite; ImFusion). Parameters obtained included 1D (defect diameter, best-fit circle diameter), 2D (defect area, best-fit circle area), and 3D (bony shoulder stability ratio) measurements. Mean values and reliability as expressed by the intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]) were compared between the manual and automated measurements. Results: When manually obtained, the measurements showed almost perfect agreement for 1D parameters (ICC = 0.83), substantial agreement for 2D parameters (ICC = 0.79), and moderate agreement for the 3D parameter (ICC = 0.48). When measurements were aided by automated software, the agreement between raters was almost perfect for all parameters (ICC = 0.90 for 1D, 2D, and 3D). There was a significant difference in mean values between manually versus automatically obtained measurements for 1D, 2D, and 3D parameters ( P < .001 for all). Conclusion: While more advanced measurement techniques that take glenoid concavity into account are more accurate in determining the biomechanical relevance of glenoid bone loss, our study showed that the reliability of manually performed, more complex measurements was moderate. Competing Interests: The authors have declared that there are no conflicts of interest in the authorship and publication of this contribution. AOSSM checks author disclosures against the Open Payments Database (OPD). AOSSM has not conducted an independent investigation on the OPD and disclaims any liability or responsibility relating thereto. (© The Author(s) 2024.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu