Glenoid bone loss is a significant problem in the management of shoulder instability. The threshold at which the bone loss is considered “critical” requiring bony reconstruction has steadily dropped and is now approximately 15%. This necessitates accurate measurement in order that the correct operation is performed. CT scanning is the most commonly used modality and there are a number of techniques described to measure the bone loss however few have been validated. The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of the most commonly used techniques for measuring glenoid bone loss on CT. Anatomically accurate models with known glenoid diameter and degree of bone loss were used to determine the mathematical and statistical accuracy of six of the most commonly described techniques (relative diameter, linear ipsilateral circle of best fit (COBF), linear contralateral COBF, Pico, Sugaya, and circle line methods). The models were prepared at 13.8%, 17.6%, and 22.9% bone loss. Sequential CT scans were taken and randomized. Blinded reviewers made repeated measurements using the different techniques with a threshold for theoretical bone grafting set at 15%.Aims
Methods
To report early (two-year) postoperative findings from a randomized controlled trial (RCT) investigating disease-specific quality of life (QOL), clinical, patient-reported, and radiological outcomes in patients undergoing a total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) with a second-generation uncemented trabecular metal (TM) glenoid versus a cemented polyethylene glenoid (POLY) component. Five fellowship-trained surgeons from three centres participated. Patients aged between 18 and 79 years with a primary diagnosis of glenohumeral osteoarthritis were screened for eligibility. Patients were randomized intraoperatively to either a TM or POLY glenoid component. Study intervals were: baseline, six weeks, six-, 12-, and 24 months postoperatively. The primary outcome was the Western Ontario Osteoarthritis Shoulder QOL score. Radiological images were reviewed for metal debris. Mixed effects repeated measures analysis of variance for within and between group comparisons were performed.Aims
Methods
