Recurrent dislocation is both a cause and consequence of glenoid bone loss, and the extent of the bony defect is an indicator guiding operative intervention. Literature suggests that loss greater than 25% requires glenoid reconstruction. Measuring bone loss is controversial; studies use different methods to determine this, with no clear evidence of reproducibility. A systematic review was performed to identify existing CT-based methods of quantifying glenoid bone loss and establish their reliability and reproducibility A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses-compliant systematic review of conventional and grey literature was performed.Aims
Methods
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
It is imperative to understand the risks of operating on urgent cases during the COVID-19 (SARS-Cov-2 virus) pandemic for clinical decision-making and medical resource planning. The primary aim was to determine the mortality risk and associated variables when operating on urgent cases during the COVID-19 pandemic. The secondary objective was to assess differences in the outcome of patients treated between sites treating COVID-19 and a separate surgical site. The primary outcome measure was 30-day mortality. Secondary measures included complications of surgery, COVID-19 infection, and length of stay. Multiple variables were assessed for their contribution to the 30-day mortality. In total, 433 patients were included with a mean age of 65 years; 45% were male, and 90% were Caucasian.Aims
Methods
