Disagreement Between the Accepted Best-Fit Circle Method to Calculate Bone Loss Between Injured and Uninjured Shoulders

• Published in: The American journal of sports medicine Vol. 51; no. 4; p. 885
• Main Authors: Do, Woo-Sung, Kim, Joo-Hyung, Lim, Joon-Ryul, Yoon, Tae-Hwan, Chun, Yong-Min
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States 01.03.2023
• Subjects: Cohort Studies; Humans; Imaging, Three-Dimensional; Joint Instability - diagnosis; Retrospective Studies; Shoulder; Shoulder Joint - diagnostic imaging; Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods; computed tomography; glenoid bone loss; shoulder instability; glenoid labrum; best-fit circle
• ISSN: 1552-3365
• DOI: 10.1177/03635465221149743

No study has evaluated whether best-fit circles based on glenoids with defects accurately represent normal inferior glenoids before injury. To investigate whether the best-fit circles on the affected side with a glenoid defect can accurately represent native glenoids before injury. Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 3. This retrospective study included 58 patients with unilateral recurrent anterior shoulder instability. First, we compared the diameter of best-fit circles based on affected and unaffected glenoids. Glenoid defect sizes based on each best-fit circle were then calculated and compared. Second, we created serial virtual glenoid defects (10%, 15%, 20%, 25%) on unaffected glenoids and compared diameters of best-fit circles on the glenoids before and after virtual defects. We also analyzed and compared the size of virtual and calculated glenoid defects. Bland-Altman plots and intraclass coefficients (ICCs) were used to compare and analyze agreement of measurements. After categorization of glenoid defects based on clinical cutoff values, Cohen κ and percentage agreement were calculated. The diameter of 55.2% (32/58) of best-fit circles from affected glenoids over- or underestimated the diameter on the unaffected side by >5%. In 28 of the 32 patients, the diameter of the affected side circle was overestimated. Consequently, 41.4% (24/58) of glenoid defects were over- or underestimated by >5%. In 19 of the 24 patients, the glenoid defect from the affected side was >5% larger. ICCs between sides for best-fit circle diameters and defect sizes were 0.632 and 0.800, respectively. Agreement of glenoid defect size between sides was 58.6% (34/58) overall, but when the defect was ≥10%, agreement decreased to 32.3% (10/31). Among 232 glenoids with virtual defects created from 58 normal glenoids, the diameter of 31.0% (72/232) of best-fit circles and the size of 11.6% (27/232) of defects were over- or underestimated by >5%. When assessing glenoid defects in anterior shoulder instability, best-fit circles based on affected glenoids do not always represent the native glenoid and may thus lead to inaccurate circle sizes and defect estimates.