The main purpose of this study is to establish which of two methods is more reliable in glenoid assessment for instability in pre-operative planning. Accordingly, we have studied the intra- and inter-observer reliability of glenoid parameters with the use of two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) reconstructed computed tomography (CT) images. One hundred glenoids were measured with the use of 2D-CT and 3D-CT (in 3D orientation) by two independent observers (one experienced and one inexperienced). Measurements were repeated after one week for 30 randomly selected glenoids. The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) for inter-observer reliability was significantly greater for 3D-CT (0.811 to 0.915) than for 2D-CT (0.523 to 0.925). All intra-observer reliability values for 3D-CT were near perfect (0.835 to 0.997), while those for 2D-CT were less reliable (0.704 to 0.960). A dependent t-test showed that, for both observers, almost all glenoid parameters (except R and d) differed significantly (p < 0.05) between 2D and 3D measurement methods. Therefore, it can be concluded that 3D glenoid reconstructions are more reliable for glenoid bone loss assessment than 2D-CT. The results suggest that quantifying a glenoid defect with the use of 2D image only—even if performed by an experienced orthopaedic surgeon—is prone to errors. Differences in measurements between and within observers can be explained by plane setting and identifying glenoid rim in 2D-CT. Accordingly, we recommend that glenoid measurements should be performed in 3D orientation using 3D reconstruction obtained from CT images for pre-operative assessments, which are crucial for surgical planning.

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.

The coexistence of glenoid and humeral head bone defects may increase the risk of recurrence of instability after soft tissue repair. Revealed factors in medical history such as male gender, younger age of dislocation, an increasing number of dislocations, contact sports, and manual work or epilepsy may increase the recurrence rate of instability. In physical examination, positive bony apprehension test, catching and crepitations in shoulder movement may suggest osseous deficiency. Anteroposterior and axial views allow for the detection of particular bony lesions in patients with recurrent anterior shoulder instability. Computed Tomography (CT) with multiplanar reconstruction (MPR) and various types of 3D rendering in 2D (quasi-3D-CT) and 3D (true-3D-CT) space allows not only detection of glenoid and humeral bone defects but most of all their quantification and relations (engaging/not-engaging and on-track/off-track) in the context of bipolar lesion. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly developing and can provide an equally accurate measurement tool for bone assessment, avoiding radiation exposure for the patient. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2020;5:815-827. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.200049

The glenoid track concept identifies patients with “off-track” (engaging) Hill-Sachs lesions (HSLs) as poor candidates for arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) due to the high risk of shoulder instability recurrence. To retrospectively calculate the glenoid track index, using preoperative computed tomography (CT) scans, in a cohort of patients with failed ABR. We hypothesized that all patients with a failed ABR would have engaging (“off-track”) HSLs on preoperative CT scan. CT scan study. Preoperative CT scan of 45 patients, seen in our facility for failed ABR, was used to retrospectively calculate the glenoid track index. The risk of recurrence was also calculated for each patient using Instability Severity Index Score (ISI-Score) and Glenoid Track Instability Management Score (GTIMS). There were 37 failed isolated ABRs and 8 associated HS remplissage. The mean t age at surgery was 24 years (range, 15-52) and instability recurred at a mean of 29 months postoperative (range, 3-167). Preoperative CT scan imaging identified “off-track” bony lesions in 85% of patients (38/45) and “on-track” lesions in 15% (7/45). No significant differences were noted between the 2 groups (off-track vs. on-track) regarding patient age, hyperlaxity, sports participation, size of HS lesion, or ISI-Score. The mean glenoid bone loss was 15.7% (range, 4-36%) with mean HS width was greater than 20 mm in 66% of CT scans. The preoperative ISI-Score was predictive of failures (>3 points in all patients) with no difference between on-track and off-track patients (6.3 ± 1.7 vs. 6.6 ± 1.7, P = .453). By contrast, the GTIMS did not predict failures as there was a significant difference between GTIMS for on-track and off-track patients (2.1 ± 1.3 vs. 6.6 ± 1.7). The glenoid track concept alone is insufficient to predict Bankart failures: in the present series of failed ABR, 15% of shoulders had “on-track” (non-engaging) lesions on preoperative CT scan. In patients, with “on-track” bony lesions, the ISI-Score is a useful predictive tool to detect patients at risk of failure, while the GTIMS is not.