Skip to main content
Erschienen in: International Orthopaedics 10/2020

Open Access 26.07.2020 | Original Paper

Reliability of humeral head measurements performed using two- and three-dimensional computed tomography in patients with shoulder instability

verfasst von: Jakub Stefaniak, A. M. Kubicka, A. Wawrzyniak, L. Romanowski, P. Lubiatowski

Erschienen in: International Orthopaedics | Ausgabe 10/2020

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of the study was to compare two measurement methods of humeral head defects in patients with shoulder instability. Intra- and inter-observer reliability of humeral head parameters were performed with the use of 2D and 3D computed tomography.

Methods

The study group was composed of one hundred humeral heads measured with the use of preoperative 2D and 3D computed tomography by three independent observers (two experienced and one inexperienced). All observers repeated measurements after 1 week. The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and the minimal detectable change with 95% confidence (MDC95%) were used for statistical analysis of diagnostic agreement.

Results

For 3D inter-observer reliability, ICC values were “excellent” for all parameters and MDC95% values were “excellent” or “reasonable.” All intra-observer ICC and MDC95% values for 3D were “excellent” for experienced and inexperienced observers. For 2D-CT, ICC values were usually “good” or “moderate” with MDC95% values higher than 10 or 30%.

Conclusions

Three-dimensional CT measurements are more reliable than 2D for humeral head and Hill-Sachs lesion assessment. This study showed that 2D measurements, even performed by experienced observers (orthopaedic surgeons), are burdened with errors. The 3D reconstruction decreased the risk of error by eliminating inaccuracy in setting the plane of the measurements.
Hinweise

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Introduction

Shoulder instability is a common condition affecting 25 in every 100.000 people a year. It affects mainly young people, especially men (3:1) [1]. In people under 20 years of age, the risk of recurrent instability after the first dislocation can be up to 90% [2].
During anterior shoulder dislocation, the humeral head is displaced in front of the glenoid and its posterior surface is wedged into the anterior edge of the glenoid. The resulting bone impression, called Hill-Sachs defect, is the common diagnosis in patients with recurrent shoulder instability. The presence of a Hill-Sachs defect may predispose to a conflict between the humeral head and glenoid, and consequently to the dislocation of the shoulder joint [3].
Diagnosis of the defects of the anterior glenoid rim and the Hill-Sachs defect is important in treatment and facilitates the selection of an appropriate treatment method [4, 5]. Recently, significant attention has been paid to the issue of coexistence of humeral bone defects with glenoid defects. Not only the presence of a humeral head defect but also its morphology, location, and its interplay with glenoid bone loss might matter from the biomechanical point of view [6, 7].
Currently, the golden standard in the treatment of patients with shoulder instability is arthroscopic Bankart repair, which in patients with normal morphology of the glenoid and humeral head proves to be highly effective and with a low risk of recurrence of instability [4]. However, in the case of glenohumeral bone defects, the effectiveness of the soft tissue repair method drops significantly. Both glenoid and humeral head defects have been considered as the most important risk factors that should guide us in our selection of the most appropriate technique to stabilize the shoulder in case of instability [810].
Hence, correct tools for bone evaluation are needed. Instability severity index score (ISIS) developed by Balg and Boileau uses a quite simple way of X-ray evaluation [8] for definition of the defects. However, Bouliane at al. found there to be very low inter-rater accuracy in the approach [11, 12]. According to Hirshmann et al. [13], conventional X-ray is characterized by poor reliability, two-dimensional computed tomography (2D-CT) by medium reliability, and three-dimensional computed tomography (3D-CT) by high reliability of assessment.
We have been able to show in our previous study that 3D glenoid reconstruction is more reliable for glenoid bone loss assessment than 2D [14]. Therefore, we have focused on the measurement of humeral head defects in shoulder instability.

The aim

The aim of this study was to assess the reliability of the most common methods to measure humeral head and its defects in patients with recurrent shoulder instability using 2D-CT and 3D-CT. We have hypothesized that 3D-CT will be more reliable than 2D-CT in assessing humeral head deficiency. In order to test the hypothesis, we have performed intra-observer and inter-observer tests by experienced and inexperienced evaluators. This study is a continuation of previous approach to evaluate the glenoid defects [14].

Material and methods

One hundred consecutive CT scans performed on 100 patients (mean age 35.5; SD 15.5; min 17; max 69) diagnosed with traumatic anterior shoulder instability were obtained from our radiology department. The scans were collected by independent orthopaedic surgeons who did not participate in the assessment of method reliability. All the patients underwent a physical examination in order to identify other shoulder pathology like rotator cuff tears, deformations, fractures, or osteoarthritis. In the next stage, a basic radiology assessment showed that 63 of the 100 CT scans displayed signs of shoulder instability (63 glenoid bone loss, of which 47 Hill-Sachs defects).
Each of the CT scans was subjected to appropriate computer processing depending on the type of measurement method used: 2D-CT with multiplanar reconstruction and 3D-CT reconstruction. For both techniques, several of the most frequently measured indices of humeral head and Hill-Sachs lesion were chosen for further assessment (Table 1): circle area of humeral head, Hill-Sachs length, Hill-Sachs depth, humeral head length, humeral head height, anatomical neck width.
Table 1
Measurements of humeral head
Name of measurement
Description
References
Circle area of humeral head
A circle is fitted with its dimensions to the edge of the joint surface
Saito et al. [15]
Cho et al. [16]
Hill-Sachs length
The length of Hill-Sachs erosion
Kodali et al. [17]
Hill-Sachs depth
The length measured between the deepest point of Hill-Sachs and the border of circle area of humeral head measurement
Kodali et al.
Humeral head length
Measurement performed from the articular surface of the humeral head to the greater tubercle, perpendicular to the long axis of the humerus
Pearl et al.
Humeral head height
Measurement performed from the articular surface of the humeral head perpendicular to the line of the anatomical neck of the humeral head
Pearl et al. [18, 19]
Anatomical neck width
Measurement performed along the line of the anatomical neck of the humeral head on the sagittal plane
Pearl et al.
All related measurements were performed by three independent observers. Two observers were orthopaedic surgeons specializing in shoulder surgery. The third was an observer with no experience in medical orthopaedic treatment (not a physician). Each of them performed measurements twice with a seven day interval without prior knowledge of the results of the first measurement and the findings of the second investigator.

2D measurement method

2D-CT method was based on an analysis of two-dimensional computed tomography with multiplanar reconstruction, using the OsiriX MD 64-bit software (v.8.5). In the first stage of the assessment, the shoulder CT scans were reconstructed in the 3D Curved-MPR module. Then, this image was set in three planes: frontal, sagittal, and transverse (Fig. 1) and measurements were performed (Table 1, Figs. 2 and 3).

3D measurement method

3D-CT was based on CT analysis in three-dimensional reconstruction. In the first stage, all scans were reconstructed in three-dimensional space using the 3D Slicer software (3D Slicer ver 4.4). The program allowed conversion of a DICOM file into a Mesh file, which could then be further evaluated using the GOM Inspect (GOM, ver 8) software (Figs. 4 and 5).
3D reconstruction was conducted by one observer to avoid any errors associated with the 3D reconstruction itself. Thirty randomly chosen tomograms were reconstructed with an interval of seven days. One of the CT scans in pair was marked as “model” and converted into the CAD format, while the second tomogram, called “comparative,” was converted into the Mesh format. Both CT scans as a pair were compared with each other using the GOM Inspect (V8) program. The reliability of the 3D reconstruction was positively assessed, as the average differences within pairs did not exceed 0.15 mm.
Next, all measurements were performed on 3D-CT with the use of GOM Inspect program (Table 1).

Statement of human and animal rights

This article does not contain any studies involving human participants and animals performed by any of the authors.

Statistical analysis

In our study, we relied on two models of reliability testing: intra- and inter-observer reliability in which we choose three independent researchers with different levels of experience. In the process of developing of our study, we relied on existing research that concerned reliability assessment in measurement methods. Moreover, our study is the continuation of previous study, regarding the assessment of reliability of glenoid bone defects measurements on 2D and 3D CT [14]. However, in this study, we decided to add one more observer (orthopaedic surgeon) to present reliability of measurements performed by observers with the same level of expertise.
Statistical analysis was performed using Microsoft Office Excel (Microsoft ver. 16.23) and SPSS software (IBM ver. 22.0.0.1) and supported by professional statistician.
Calculation of sample size for reliability tests with intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) was performed to check whether number of patients included in the analysis allows reliable statistical analysis [20]. In the intra-observer reliability, with the use of ICC, the sample size should not contain less than N = 13 and Ndrop = 15 in case of 10% dropout (expected ICC 0.92; two repetitions; the lower acceptable ICC was 0.7 and a significance level for a one-tailed test was a = 0.05). For the inter-observer reliability, the sample size should not contain less than N = 38 with Ndrop = 43 in case of 10% dropout (expected reliability ICC = 0.92; precision 0.05 with confidence level 95%).
Intra-observer and inter-observer reliability were calculated for 100 CT scans for humeral head measurements (circle area of humeral head, humeral head length, humeral head height, anatomical neck width) and for 47 CT scans containing visible Hill-Sachs lesion (Hill-Sachs length, Hill-Sachs depth). All measurements were repeated after seven days by each observer.
Reliability was calculated by means of ICC in which values can range from 0 to 1, where “0” means total non-compliance, and “1” absolute compliance of the measurement.
For inter- and intra-observer reliability, ICC (2,k) (two-way random effects, absolute agreement, multiple raters/measurements) model was calculated with a 95% confidence interval (95% CI) [21]. Compliance in the ICC range is ranked as follows: “excellent,” > 0.9; “good,” 0.75 < ICC <0.9; “moderate,” 0.5 < ICC < 0.7; and “poor,” ICC < 0.5 [21, 22].
The minimal detectable change (MDC) defined as the minimal amount of change that is required to distinguish a true performance change from a change due to variability in performance or measurement error. MDC with 95% confidence (MDC95%) was calculated as percentages of measurement mean and showed real change and repeatability of the test. MDC95% values lower than 30% were assessed as “reasonable” and lower than 10% as “excellent” [23].

Results

Inter-observer reliability

In 2D CT method, ICC values were “excellent” for parameters circle area of humeral head and Hill-Sachs depth; “good” for Hill-Sachs length, humeral head length, and humeral head height; and “moderate” for anatomical neck width. In 3D CT method, ICC values for all parameters were “excellent.”
For 3D measurements, the MDC95% values were “excellent” for circle area of humeral head, Hill-Sachs length, Hill-Sachs-depth, humeral head length, and humeral head height (2.76–2.89) and “reasonable” for anatomical neck width (14.00).
For 2D measurements, MDC95%values were excellent for circle area of humeral head and humeral head height (5.29–9.76) and “reasonable” for Hill-Sachs depth, humeral head length, and anatomical neck width (23.94–24.73). For Hill-Sachs length measurement, MDC95% value was higher than 30% (74.99).
All measurements are presented in Table 2.
Table 2
ICC values for inter-observer 2D-CT and 3D-CT measurements and statistical significance. ICC, inter-class correlation coefficient; 95% CI, 95% confidence interval
 
N
2D
3D
  
ICC
95%CI
MDC%
ICC
95%CI
MDC%
Circle area of humeral head
100
0.965
0.983–0.983
5,29
0,988
0.912–0.995
2.76
Hill-Sachs length
47
0.825
0.595–0.991
74,99
0,984
0.949–0.993
2.83
Hill-Sachs depth
47
0.968
0.949–0.980
23,94
0,990
0.967–0.995
2.81
Humeral head length
100
0.786
0.701–0.846
12,69
0,986
0.963–0.993
2.83
Humeral head height
100
0.888
0.844–0.920
9,76
0,999
0.998–0.999
2.89
Anatomical neck width
100
0.735
0.511–0.841
24,73
0,991
0.985–0.994
14.00

Intra-observer reliability

In 2D-CT method, ICC values for 1st experienced observer were “excellent” for Hill-Sachs length and Hill-Sachs depth, “good” for circle area of humeral head and humeral head height, and “moderate” for humeral head length and anatomical neck width.
All ICC values for the first experienced observer in 3D method were “excellent.”
MDC95% values were excellent for all 3D measurements (2.78–9.46) and reasonable for all 2D parameters (11.16–22.47).
For the second experienced observer in 2D-CT evaluation, ICC values were “excellent” for anatomical neck width, Hill-Sachs depth, “good” for circle area of humeral head and humeral head height, and “moderate” for Hill-Sachs length and humeral head length.
All ICC values for the second experienced observer in 3D CT method were “excellent.”
MDC95% values were excellent for all 3D measurements (2.79–8.66). For 2D measurements, MDC95% values were “excellent” for anatomical neck width and “reasonable” for circle area of humeral head, Hill-Sachs depth, humeral head height, and humeral head length (8.37–16.77). For Hill-Sachs length, MDC95% value was higher than 30% (44.34%).
For the inexperienced observer, in 2D CT method, ICC values were “good” for circle area of humeral head, Hill-Sachs depth, and humeral head height and “moderate” for Hill-Sachs length, humeral head length, and anatomical neck width.
All ICC values for the in-experienced observer in 3D-CT method were “excellent.”
All values of MDC95% were “excellent” for 3D measurements (3.44–9.18). For 2D measurements, MDC95% values were “reasonable” for circle area of humeral head, humeral head height, humeral head length, and anatomical neck width (11.87–25.21). No 2D parameters were “excellent.” Two parameters, Hill-Sachs length and Hill-Sachs depth, had MDC95% values higher than 30–44.35 and 63.37, respectively.
All results are presented in Table 3.
Table 3
ICC values for 1st and 2nd experienced and in-experienced intra-observer measurements. ICC, interclass correlation coefficient; 95% CI, 95% confidence interval
 
N
Experienced observer 1
Experienced observer 2
In-experienced observer
 
2D
3D
2D
3D
2D
3D
 
ICC
95%CI
MDC%
ICC
95%CI
MDC%
ICC
95%CI
MDC%
ICC
95%CI
MDC%
ICC
95%CI
MDC%
ICC
95%CI
MDC%
Circle area of humeral head
100
0.867
0.815–0.905
11.16
0.987
0.982–0.991
2.79
0.877
0.828–0.911
11.17
0.987
0.978–0.992
2.79
0.876
0.827–0.911
11.87
0.981
0.973–0.986
3.44
Hill-Sachs length
47
0.978
0.964–0.986
11.60
0.999
0.998–0.999
2.89
0.720
0.545–0.828
44.34
0.999
0.866–0,996
2.90
0.724
0.552–0.831
44.35
0.997
0.995–0.998
4.41
Hill-Sachs depth
47
0.992
0.987–0.995
12.56
0.993
0.989–0.996
9.46
0.992
0.987–0.995
12.59
0.996
0.992–0.998
8.66
0.771
0.628–0.859
63.37
0.994
0.989–0.996
9.18
Humeral head length
100
0.595
0.417–0.715
22.47
0.985
0.979–0.989
2.78
0.750
0.651–0.820
16.77
0.979
0.968–0.986
3.21
0.741
0.639–0.814
18.19
0.975
0.965–0.982
3.45
Humeral head height
100
0.894
0.852–0.924
11.18
0.990
0.986–0.993
2.79
0.811
0.736–0.864
16.77
0.988
0.981–0.992
3.08
0.867
0.814–0.904
14.00
0.976
0.967–0.983
4.34
Anatomical neck width
100
0.592
0.422–0.710
25.17
0.986
0.981–0.990
2.78
0.925
0.896–0.946
8.37
0.981
0.971–0.987
3.21
0.641
0.489–0.746
25.21
0.978
0.969–0.984
3.47

Discussion

Based on the results of the study, we have confirmed the hypothesis that computed tomography with 3D reconstruction is more reliable than 2D-CT for evaluation of humeral head parameters and bone defects. Furthermore, we have also shown that a 3D-CT evaluation seems to be resistant to bias resulting from the level of the researcher’s experience. In all evaluations, ICC values were “excellent” for all 3D-CT measurements. MDC95% values for 3D measurements were “excellent” for almost all parameters (except inter-observer anatomical neck width measurement, where the MDC95% value was “reasonable” (14.00)). For comparison, 2D measurements had usually good or moderate ICC values and “reasonable” or above 30% threshold values of MDC95%.
Bone defects on the lateral surface of the humeral head were first described in 1855 by Malgaigna [24], but only in 1940 did Hill and Sachs completely described and published the morphology of these defects [25]. The incidence of the Hill-Sachs defect increases with the number of shoulder joint dislocations. After the first episode of dislocation, Hill-Sachs presence is found in about 65% of cases, and in patients with recurrent instability in almost 93% of cases [26, 27]. In our series, the incidence of humeral head lesions was 47%. The exact assessment depends on the use of an appropriate diagnostic method. The presence of Hill-Sachs bone loss is important in the case of a risk of a conflict between the humeral bone defect and the anterior glenoid rim. Therefore, an accurate assessment of the morphology of the defect (length, width, depth, and location), which is essential due to its impact on the choice of treatment method, depends on the quality of the examination methodology [28].
The assessment of the bone defects of the anterior glenoid rim and humeral head is usually based on a two-dimensional analysis of transverse CT scans. Currently available software for computed tomography analysis provides a number of useful tools, with the help of which we can perform the necessary measurements such as a measurement of the length of a straight line joining two points, the surface area of the selected point, or volume of space. However, the analysis of a two-dimensional image of an essentially three-dimensional object leads to the risk of making a mistake resulting from image imperfections or measurement errors on the part of the person performing the measurement. Some models of two-dimensional image processing, available in commercial programs, gave the opportunity to reconstruct a stack of individual images into one three-dimensional model, the projection of which can be set in three planes (transverse, frontal, and sagittal). However, the analysis of such projections (application of measurements) is still carried out only on one plane, which will not eliminate the basic errors of the method [29, 30]. Referring to this type of “hybrid” image projection as a three-dimensional reconstruction is therefore not fully correct.
The real three-dimensional method assumes the reconstruction of a virtual three-dimensional model of the tested object and gives the possibility to perform such measurements in three planes. When applying measurements within the glenoid or the humeral head, the model can be freely rotated to identify and apply the correct measurement point. This reduces the risk of error arising from faulty setting of the initial measurement projection, as in the two-dimensional method [14].
In our previous study, we analyzed the reliability of the 2D and 3D measurement method of anterior glenoid bone loss assessment in patients with anterior shoulder instability [14]. We have proved that ICC values for 3D-CT reconstruction were significantly more reliable for most measurements than the 2D method. Just as in this study, we have proven that the 3D method allows for more accurate measurement by researchers with different levels of experience. Similar to the measurements of the glenoid defect, different measuring methods of the Hill-Sachs bone loss were described in the literature [31]. Kodali et al. positively assessed the reliability of the Hill-Sachs measurement by two-dimensional tomography, measuring the width and depth of the defect in three planes (sagittal, frontal, and transverse) [17]. In contrast, the method of three-dimensional tomography was used by Cho et al. assessing the width and depth of Hill-Sachs defects and their position relative to the articular surface of the humeral head [16]. Ho et al. assessed the reliability of 3D-CT measurements of nine anatomically shaped bone models of Hill-Sachs lesions. There was strong agreement between all raters for all measured parameters (length, width, depth) [32].
One of the most important findings in our study was the experience of evaluation in interpretation of CT images matters if is based on 2D images. The spatial view and 3D reconstruction seem to provide more relatable tools independent of the experience of the surgeon. This aspect of measurement methods has not been, to our best knowledge, studied in shoulder imagine evaluations up until now (the exception being our previous publication on glenoid defects [14]). Kaup et al. evaluated the impact of radiologists’ experience in diagnostic accuracy of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures in CT and MRI imaging [33]. In another field of imaging, radiologists’ experience was also addressed in the assessment of salivary gland tumours with the use of CT and MRI [34]. In both studies, higher experience resulted in greater reliability.
Traditional X-rays have also been used for the evaluation of humeral head defects. They have been part of the commonly used ISIS. This score assists surgeons in identifying the risk factors for recurrence of shoulder instability following shoulder stabilization treatment. In the case of an absence of risks, arthroscopic Bankart repair has a high potential for effective treatment. Bone defects are the major criteria and misinterpretation may lead to underscoring and hence incorrect surgical planning. Burkhart et al. shows that in 67% of patients with an inverted-pear glenoid have recurrent shoulder instability after soft tissue repair and a 100% recurrence in patients with Hill-Sachs [4]. Tauber et al. found bone defects in 57% out of 41 patients re-operated on for recurrence of instability [9]. Finally, Boileau et al. identified risk factors for recurrence instability—attritional glenoid defect (> 25% bone loss) and Hill-Sachs with stretched anterior capsule or laxity [35]. The inexperience of the surgeon and the case of unclear image together with low value of instruments could be some of the reasons for such weak assessments. Traditional X-ray allows us to diagnose the presence of a defect only in about 7% of cases after the first dislocation episode, in comparison, computed tomography or magnetic resonance tomography images are much more accurate and allow us to determine the presence of a defect in more than 90% of cases [36]. Chalmers et al. report that linear measurements resulted in most aggressive recommendations of treatment [37]. Stillwater et al. assessed that there are no significant differences between measurements performed on 3D-CT and 3D-MR postprocessed images [38]. On the other hand, there are some studies which undermine the accuracy of 3D-CT measurements in comparison to measurements performed with the use of arthroscopy [39].
One of the limitations of the study is that we have just focused on humeral head defects. Recently, as studied by Di Giacomo et al. [40] and Yamamoto et al. [7], the importance of HSL the position (not only the size) and bipolar lesions have been found to play an important role in so called engagement. The identification of both seems to be an important factor in deciding on the choice of optimal operating technique to stabilize the shoulder. This study is a continuation of our work on glenoid evaluation. An evaluation of the interplay of bipolar lesions would exceed the scope of one research paper and is proposed as a matter for a further study.
Another weakness identified in current diagnosis methods is the complexity of 3D reconstruction measurements. 3D methods of measurement with the currently available software are relatively advanced and difficult to use accurately. As a result, it may be troublesome and time consuming in everyday clinical practice. An automated process could improve the practical use applicability of CT-based image reconstruction. Such attempts have already been implanted in surgical planning for arthroplasty. Good examples of this are patients-specific instruments (PSI) software used in hip, knee, or shoulder replacement (OrthoView software etc.).
To conclude, 3D-CT measurements are more reliable than 2D for humeral head and Hill-Sachs lesion assessment. This study showed that 2D measurements, even performed by experienced observers (orthopedic surgeons) are burdened with errors. The 3D reconstruction decreased the risk of error due to inaccuracy in setting the plane of the measurements and might be precise and easy to use for evaluators inexperienced in computed tomography assessment.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​4.​0/​.

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Unsere Produktempfehlungen

e.Med Interdisziplinär

Kombi-Abonnement

Für Ihren Erfolg in Klinik und Praxis - Die beste Hilfe in Ihrem Arbeitsalltag

Mit e.Med Interdisziplinär erhalten Sie Zugang zu allen CME-Fortbildungen und Fachzeitschriften auf SpringerMedizin.de.

© Springer Medizin

Bis 11. April 2024 bestellen und im ersten Jahr 50 % sparen!

e.Med Orthopädie & Unfallchirurgie

Kombi-Abonnement

Mit e.Med Orthopädie & Unfallchirurgie erhalten Sie Zugang zu CME-Fortbildungen der Fachgebiete, den Premium-Inhalten der dazugehörigen Fachzeitschriften, inklusive einer gedruckten Zeitschrift Ihrer Wahl.

© Springer Medizin

Bis 11. April 2024 bestellen und im ersten Jahr 50 % sparen!

Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Zacchilli MA, Owens BD (2010) Epidemiology of shoulder dislocations presenting to emergency departments in the United States. J Bone Jt Surg Ser A 92(3):542–549CrossRef Zacchilli MA, Owens BD (2010) Epidemiology of shoulder dislocations presenting to emergency departments in the United States. J Bone Jt Surg Ser A 92(3):542–549CrossRef
2.
Zurück zum Zitat McLaughlin HL, Cavallaro WU (1950) Primary anterior dislocation of the shoulder. Am J Surg 80(6):615–621CrossRef McLaughlin HL, Cavallaro WU (1950) Primary anterior dislocation of the shoulder. Am J Surg 80(6):615–621CrossRef
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Yamamoto N et al (2009) Effect of an anterior glenoid defect on anterior shoulder stability: a cadaveric study. Am J Sports Med 37(5):949–954CrossRef Yamamoto N et al (2009) Effect of an anterior glenoid defect on anterior shoulder stability: a cadaveric study. Am J Sports Med 37(5):949–954CrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Burkhart SS, De Beer JF (2000) Traumatic glenohumeral bone defects and their relationship to failure of arthroscopic Bankart repairs: significance of the inverted-pear glenoid and the humeral engaging Hill-Sachs lesion. Arthroscopy 16(7):677–694CrossRef Burkhart SS, De Beer JF (2000) Traumatic glenohumeral bone defects and their relationship to failure of arthroscopic Bankart repairs: significance of the inverted-pear glenoid and the humeral engaging Hill-Sachs lesion. Arthroscopy 16(7):677–694CrossRef
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Itoi E, Lee SB, Berglund LJ, Berge LL, An KN (2000) The effect of a glenoid defect on anteroinferior stability of the shoulder after Bankart repair: a cadaveric study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 82(1):35–46CrossRef Itoi E, Lee SB, Berglund LJ, Berge LL, An KN (2000) The effect of a glenoid defect on anteroinferior stability of the shoulder after Bankart repair: a cadaveric study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 82(1):35–46CrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Yamamoto N, Itoi E (2015) Osseous defects seen in patients with anterior shoulder instability. Clin Orthop Surg 7(4):425–429CrossRef Yamamoto N, Itoi E (2015) Osseous defects seen in patients with anterior shoulder instability. Clin Orthop Surg 7(4):425–429CrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Yamamoto N et al (2007) Contact between the glenoid and the humeral head in abduction, external rotation, and horizontal extension: a new concept of glenoid track. J Shoulder Elb Surg 16(5):649–656CrossRef Yamamoto N et al (2007) Contact between the glenoid and the humeral head in abduction, external rotation, and horizontal extension: a new concept of glenoid track. J Shoulder Elb Surg 16(5):649–656CrossRef
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Balg F, Boileau P (2007) The instability severity index score: a simple pre-operative score to select patients for arthroscopic or open shoulder stabilisation. J Bone Jt Surg Ser B 89(11):1470–1477CrossRef Balg F, Boileau P (2007) The instability severity index score: a simple pre-operative score to select patients for arthroscopic or open shoulder stabilisation. J Bone Jt Surg Ser B 89(11):1470–1477CrossRef
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Tauber M, Resch H, Forstner R, Raffl M, Schauer J (2004) Reasons for failure after surgical repair of anterior shoulder instability. J Shoulder Elb Surg 13(3):279–285CrossRef Tauber M, Resch H, Forstner R, Raffl M, Schauer J (2004) Reasons for failure after surgical repair of anterior shoulder instability. J Shoulder Elb Surg 13(3):279–285CrossRef
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Fujii Y, Yoneda M, Wakitani S, Hayashida K (2006) Histologic analysis of bony Bankart lesions in recurrent anterior instability of the shoulder. J Shoulder Elb Surg 15(2):218–223CrossRef Fujii Y, Yoneda M, Wakitani S, Hayashida K (2006) Histologic analysis of bony Bankart lesions in recurrent anterior instability of the shoulder. J Shoulder Elb Surg 15(2):218–223CrossRef
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Bouliane MJ et al (2013) The intra- and inter-rater reliability of plain radiographs for Hill-Sachs and bony glenoid lesions: evaluation of the radiographic portion of the instability severity index score. Shoulder Elb 5(1):33–38CrossRef Bouliane MJ et al (2013) The intra- and inter-rater reliability of plain radiographs for Hill-Sachs and bony glenoid lesions: evaluation of the radiographic portion of the instability severity index score. Shoulder Elb 5(1):33–38CrossRef
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Rouleau DM, Hébert-Davies J, Djahangiri A, Godbout V, Pelet S, Balg F (2013) Validation of the instability shoulder index score in a multicenter reliability study in 114 consecutive cases. Am J Sports Med 41(2):278–282CrossRef Rouleau DM, Hébert-Davies J, Djahangiri A, Godbout V, Pelet S, Balg F (2013) Validation of the instability shoulder index score in a multicenter reliability study in 114 consecutive cases. Am J Sports Med 41(2):278–282CrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Hirschmann MT, Konala P, Amsler F, Iranpour F, Friederich NF, Cobb JP (2011) The position and orientation of total knee replacement components. J Bone Joint Surg Br 93-B(5):629–633CrossRef Hirschmann MT, Konala P, Amsler F, Iranpour F, Friederich NF, Cobb JP (2011) The position and orientation of total knee replacement components. J Bone Joint Surg Br 93-B(5):629–633CrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Kubicka AM et al (2016) Reliability of measurements performed on two dimensional and three dimensional computed tomography in glenoid assessment for instability. Int Orthop 40(12):2581–2588CrossRef Kubicka AM et al (2016) Reliability of measurements performed on two dimensional and three dimensional computed tomography in glenoid assessment for instability. Int Orthop 40(12):2581–2588CrossRef
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Saito H, Itoi E, Minagawa H, Yamamoto N, Tuoheti Y, Seki N (2009) Location of the Hill-Sachs lesion in shoulders with recurrent anterior dislocation. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 129(10):1327–1334CrossRef Saito H, Itoi E, Minagawa H, Yamamoto N, Tuoheti Y, Seki N (2009) Location of the Hill-Sachs lesion in shoulders with recurrent anterior dislocation. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 129(10):1327–1334CrossRef
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Cho SH, Cho NS, Rhee YG (2011) Preoperative analysis of the hill-sachs lesion in anterior shoulder instability: how to predict engagement of the lesion. Am J Sports Med 39(11):2389–2395CrossRef Cho SH, Cho NS, Rhee YG (2011) Preoperative analysis of the hill-sachs lesion in anterior shoulder instability: how to predict engagement of the lesion. Am J Sports Med 39(11):2389–2395CrossRef
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Kodali P, Jones MH, Polster J, Miniaci A, Fening SD (2011) Accuracy of measurement of Hill-Sachs lesions with computed tomography. J Shoulder Elb Surg 20(8):1328–1334CrossRef Kodali P, Jones MH, Polster J, Miniaci A, Fening SD (2011) Accuracy of measurement of Hill-Sachs lesions with computed tomography. J Shoulder Elb Surg 20(8):1328–1334CrossRef
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Pearl ML, Kurutz S, Postachini R (2009) Geometric variables in anatomic replacement of the proximal humerus: how much prosthetic geometry is necessary? J Shoulder Elb Surg 18(3):366–370CrossRef Pearl ML, Kurutz S, Postachini R (2009) Geometric variables in anatomic replacement of the proximal humerus: how much prosthetic geometry is necessary? J Shoulder Elb Surg 18(3):366–370CrossRef
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Pearl ML (2005) Proximal humeral anatomy in shoulder arthroplasty: implications for prosthetic design and surgical technique. J Shoulder Elb Surg 14(1 SUPPL):S99–S104CrossRef Pearl ML (2005) Proximal humeral anatomy in shoulder arthroplasty: implications for prosthetic design and surgical technique. J Shoulder Elb Surg 14(1 SUPPL):S99–S104CrossRef
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Arifin WN (2018) A web-based sample size calculator for reliability studies. Educ Med J 10(3):67–76CrossRef Arifin WN (2018) A web-based sample size calculator for reliability studies. Educ Med J 10(3):67–76CrossRef
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Koo TK, Li MY (2016) A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med 15(2):155–163CrossRef Koo TK, Li MY (2016) A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med 15(2):155–163CrossRef
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Portney L, Watkins M (2000) Foundations of clinical research: applications to practice. Prentice Hail, New Jersey Portney L, Watkins M (2000) Foundations of clinical research: applications to practice. Prentice Hail, New Jersey
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Huang S-L, Hsieh C-L, Wu R-M, Tai C-H, Lin C-H, Lu W-S (2011) Minimal detectable change of the timed ‘up & go’ test and the dynamic gait index in people with Parkinson disease. Phys Ther 91(1):114–121CrossRef Huang S-L, Hsieh C-L, Wu R-M, Tai C-H, Lin C-H, Lu W-S (2011) Minimal detectable change of the timed ‘up & go’ test and the dynamic gait index in people with Parkinson disease. Phys Ther 91(1):114–121CrossRef
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Malgaigne J (1855) Traité des fractures et des luxations. Paris JB Baillière Malgaigne J (1855) Traité des fractures et des luxations. Paris JB Baillière
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Hill H, Sachs M (1940) The grooved defect of humeral head: a frequently unrecognized complication of dislocations of the shoulder joint. Radiology 35(13):690–700CrossRef Hill H, Sachs M (1940) The grooved defect of humeral head: a frequently unrecognized complication of dislocations of the shoulder joint. Radiology 35(13):690–700CrossRef
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Spatschil A et al (2006) Posttraumatic anterior-inferior instability of the shoulder: arthroscopic findings and clinical correlations. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 126(4):217–222CrossRef Spatschil A et al (2006) Posttraumatic anterior-inferior instability of the shoulder: arthroscopic findings and clinical correlations. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 126(4):217–222CrossRef
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Yiannakopoulos CK, Mataragas E, Antonogiannakis E (2007) A comparison of the spectrum of intra-articular lesions in acute and chronic anterior shoulder instability. Arthrosc J Arthrosc Relat Surg 23(9):985–990CrossRef Yiannakopoulos CK, Mataragas E, Antonogiannakis E (2007) A comparison of the spectrum of intra-articular lesions in acute and chronic anterior shoulder instability. Arthrosc J Arthrosc Relat Surg 23(9):985–990CrossRef
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Calandra JJ, Baker CL, Uribe J (1989) The incidence of Hill-Sachs lesions in initial anterior shoulder dislocations. Arthrosc J Arthrosc Relat Surg 5(4):254–257CrossRef Calandra JJ, Baker CL, Uribe J (1989) The incidence of Hill-Sachs lesions in initial anterior shoulder dislocations. Arthrosc J Arthrosc Relat Surg 5(4):254–257CrossRef
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Churchill RS, Brems JJ, Kotschi H (2001) Glenoid size, inclination, and version: An anatomic study. J Shoulder Elb Surg 10(4):327–332CrossRef Churchill RS, Brems JJ, Kotschi H (2001) Glenoid size, inclination, and version: An anatomic study. J Shoulder Elb Surg 10(4):327–332CrossRef
30.
Zurück zum Zitat Beuckelaers E, Jacxsens M, Van Tongel A, De Wilde LF (2014) Three-dimensional computed tomography scan evaluation of the pattern of erosion in type B glenoids. J Shoulder Elb Surg 23(1):109–116CrossRef Beuckelaers E, Jacxsens M, Van Tongel A, De Wilde LF (2014) Three-dimensional computed tomography scan evaluation of the pattern of erosion in type B glenoids. J Shoulder Elb Surg 23(1):109–116CrossRef
31.
Zurück zum Zitat Maio M, Sarmento M, Moura N. Shoulder & Elbow How to measure a Hill – Sachs lesion : a systematic review. vol. 4, no. April, 2019 Maio M, Sarmento M, Moura N. Shoulder & Elbow How to measure a Hill – Sachs lesion : a systematic review. vol. 4, no. April, 2019
32.
Zurück zum Zitat Ho A, Kurdziel MD, Koueiter DM, Wiater JM (2018) Three-dimensional computed tomography measurement accuracy of varying Hill-Sachs lesion size. J Shoulder Elb Surg 27(2):350–356 Ho A, Kurdziel MD, Koueiter DM, Wiater JM (2018) Three-dimensional computed tomography measurement accuracy of varying Hill-Sachs lesion size. J Shoulder Elb Surg 27(2):350–356
33.
Zurück zum Zitat Kaup M et al (2016) Dual-energy CT-based display of bone marrow edema in osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: impact on diagnostic accuracy of radiologists with varying levels of experience in correlation to MR imaging. Radiology 280(2):510–519CrossRef Kaup M et al (2016) Dual-energy CT-based display of bone marrow edema in osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: impact on diagnostic accuracy of radiologists with varying levels of experience in correlation to MR imaging. Radiology 280(2):510–519CrossRef
34.
Zurück zum Zitat Vogl TJ et al (2018) Assessment of salivary gland tumors using MRI and CT: impact of experience on diagnostic accuracy. Radiol Med 123(2):105–116CrossRef Vogl TJ et al (2018) Assessment of salivary gland tumors using MRI and CT: impact of experience on diagnostic accuracy. Radiol Med 123(2):105–116CrossRef
35.
Zurück zum Zitat Boileau P, Villalba M, Héry JY, Balg F, Ahrens P, Neyton L (2006) Risk factors for recurrence of shoulder instability after arthroscopic bankart repair. J Bone Jt Surg Ser A 88(8):1755–1763CrossRef Boileau P, Villalba M, Héry JY, Balg F, Ahrens P, Neyton L (2006) Risk factors for recurrence of shoulder instability after arthroscopic bankart repair. J Bone Jt Surg Ser A 88(8):1755–1763CrossRef
36.
Zurück zum Zitat Owens BD et al (2010) Pathoanatomy of first-time, traumatic, anterior glenohumeral subluxation events. J Bone Jt Surg Ser A 92(7):1605–1611CrossRef Owens BD et al (2010) Pathoanatomy of first-time, traumatic, anterior glenohumeral subluxation events. J Bone Jt Surg Ser A 92(7):1605–1611CrossRef
37.
Zurück zum Zitat Chalmers PN, Christensen G, O’Neill D, Tashjian RZ (2020) Does bone loss imaging modality, measurement methodology, and interobserver reliability alter treatment in glenohumeral instability? Arthrosc J Arthrosc Relat Surg 36(1):12–19CrossRef Chalmers PN, Christensen G, O’Neill D, Tashjian RZ (2020) Does bone loss imaging modality, measurement methodology, and interobserver reliability alter treatment in glenohumeral instability? Arthrosc J Arthrosc Relat Surg 36(1):12–19CrossRef
38.
Zurück zum Zitat Stillwater L, Koenig J, Maycher B, Davidson M (2017) 3D-MR vs. 3D-CT of the shoulder in patients with glenohumeral instability. Skelet Radiol 46(3):325–331CrossRef Stillwater L, Koenig J, Maycher B, Davidson M (2017) 3D-MR vs. 3D-CT of the shoulder in patients with glenohumeral instability. Skelet Radiol 46(3):325–331CrossRef
39.
Zurück zum Zitat Funakoshi T, Hartzler RU, Stewien E, Burkhart SS (2019) Hill-Sachs lesion classification by the Glenoid track paradigm in shoulder instability: poor agreement between 3-dimensional computed tomographic and arthroscopic methods. Arthrosc J Arthrosc Relat Surg 35(6):1743–1749CrossRef Funakoshi T, Hartzler RU, Stewien E, Burkhart SS (2019) Hill-Sachs lesion classification by the Glenoid track paradigm in shoulder instability: poor agreement between 3-dimensional computed tomographic and arthroscopic methods. Arthrosc J Arthrosc Relat Surg 35(6):1743–1749CrossRef
40.
Zurück zum Zitat Di Giacomo G, Itoi E, Burkhart SS (2014) Evolving concept of bipolar bone loss and the hill-sachs lesion: from ‘engaging/non-engaging’ lesion to ‘on-track/off-track’ lesion. Arthrosc J Arthrosc Relat Surg 30(1):90–98CrossRef Di Giacomo G, Itoi E, Burkhart SS (2014) Evolving concept of bipolar bone loss and the hill-sachs lesion: from ‘engaging/non-engaging’ lesion to ‘on-track/off-track’ lesion. Arthrosc J Arthrosc Relat Surg 30(1):90–98CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Reliability of humeral head measurements performed using two- and three-dimensional computed tomography in patients with shoulder instability
verfasst von
Jakub Stefaniak
A. M. Kubicka
A. Wawrzyniak
L. Romanowski
P. Lubiatowski
Publikationsdatum
26.07.2020
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
International Orthopaedics / Ausgabe 10/2020
Print ISSN: 0341-2695
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-5195
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-020-04710-x

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 10/2020

International Orthopaedics 10/2020 Zur Ausgabe

Arthropedia

Grundlagenwissen der Arthroskopie und Gelenkchirurgie. Erweitert durch Fallbeispiele, Videos und Abbildungen. 
» Jetzt entdecken

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.