Table 3 Studies Assessing Glenoid Width Loss with CT and MRI

Charousset et al. [47]: Retrospective case series

31 patients

True AP radiography:

Loss of sclerotic line:

Assessment:

loss of sclerotic line

Inter-observer ICC 0.44-0.47

True AP radiography & 2DCT arthrogram; 3 observers measured twice

CT:

Intra-observer ICC 0.66-0.93

Outcome:

Griffiths Index (Fig. 1) & best-fit circle width loss (Fig. 10)

Griffiths Index:

Reliability

Inter-observer ICC 0.68-0.71

Intra-observer ICC 0.78-0.9

Best-Fit Circle Width Loss:

Inter-observer ICC 0.74

Intra-observer ICC 0.9-0.95;

Chuang et al. [68]: Retrospective case series

25 patients

CT:

Glenoid Index correctly categorized 96 % of patients

Assessment:

Glenoid Index (Fig. 5)

Glenoid Index:

Bilateral 3DCT followed by diagnostic arthroscopy: >25 % glenoid width loss (Latarjet); <25 % glenoid width loss (arthroscopic Bankart)

Arthroscopy:

Latarjet group: mean 0.668

Outcome:

Bare area method

Bankart group: mean 0.914

Ability to predict type of surgery offered

Griffith et al. [33]: Case–control study

40 patients (46 shoulders); 10 healthy subjects

Measurements:

Healthy subjects:

Assessment:

Width & cross-sectional surface area on axial slice; length; width; length:width ratio; glenoid surface area by point tracing; flattening of anterior glenoid curvature

No significant difference in side-side measurements

Bilateral CT;1 observer measured once

Instability Subjects:

Outcome:

Width (3 mm difference; 10.8 % width loss); length:width ratio, & cross-sectional area significantly different side-to-side

Glenoid comparison with healthy subjects on en face glenoid view

Griffith et al. [58]: Prospective case series

50 patients

Width Measurement:

CT correlation with arthroscopy:

Assessment:

Griffiths Index (Fig. 1)

Pearson Correlation Coefficient r = 0.79

Bilateral CT followed by arthroscopy; compared to measurements made during arthroscopy (bare spot method); 1 observer measured once

Outcome:

Sensitivity 92.7 %

Correlation, PPV, NPV

Specificity 77.8 %

PPV 95 %; NPV 70 %.

Mean bone loss(p = 0.17):

CT 11.0 %+/−8.1 %

Arthroscopy 12.3 %+/−8.8 %

Griffith et al. [62]: Case–control study

218 patients; 56 healthy subjects

Width measurement:

Griffith Index (Fig. 1)

Normal side-to-side glenoid width difference small (0.46 mm);

Assessment:

Note: Glenoid bone loss not calculated on bilateral subjects

Reliability:

Bilateral CT; 1 observer measured all subjects; 2 observers measured 40 patients twice

Inter-observer reliability ICC 0.91

Outcome:

Intra-observer reliability ICC 0.95

Reliability

Gyftopoulos et al. [48]: Cadaveric study

18 cadavers

Width method:

Intra-observer concordance correlation coefficient (CCC):

Assessment:

Best-fit circle width method based on ipsilateral glenoid

2DCT 0.95

Defects created along anterior and antero-inferior glenoid; 3 observers measured defect size once; 1 observer re-measured at 4 weeks; gold standard was digital photograph

3DCT 0.95

Outcome:

MRI 0.95

Reliability, PE

Inter-observer CCC:

2DCT −0.28-0.88

3DCT 0.82-0.93

MRI 0.70-0.96

Percent error:

2DCT 2.22-17.11 %

3DCT 2.17-3.50 %

MRI 2.06-5.94 %

Lee et al. [52]: Prospective cohort study

65 patients

1) Best-fit circle surface area:

Inter-observer reliability (ICC)

Assessment:

Pico Method

Best-fit circle width R = 0.95

CT (bilateral) & MRI followed by arthroscopy; 1 observer measured CT once; 3 observers measured MRI once; 1 observer measured MRI 3 times;arthroscopy was gold standard using bare-area technique

2) Best-fit circle width method:

Area (Pico method) R = 0.90

Outcome:

Based on contralateral glenoid

Intra-observer reliability:

Reliability, correlation

Width R = 0.98, area R = 0.97

Correlation:

CT-MRI r = 0.83

CT-arthroscopy r = 0.91

MRI-arthroscopy r = 0.84

Moroder et al. [50]: Retrospective case series

48 patients

Width method:

CT for glenoid lesion:

Assessment:

Best-fit circle width method

Sensitivity 100 %

Pre-op CT & MRI evaluated after failed instability surgery; findings at initial operation were comparators; 1 observer measured significant glenoid defects (>20 % of width)

Specificity 100 %

Outcome:

MRI for significant lesion:

Sensitivity 35.3 %

Sensitivity, specificity

Specificity 100 %

CT would have misled treatment in only 4.2 %

Tian et al. [51]: Prospective cohort study

41 patients; 15 control patients

Width method:

No significant size measurements between MRA (10.48 %+/−8.71 %) & CT (10.96 %+/−9.0 %; p = 0.288).

Assessment:

Best-fit circle width method based on ipsilateral glenoid (Fig. 10)

Correlation between methods:

CT & MRA; 2 observers measured once

Pearson correlation coefficient r = 0.921; SD 3.3 %

Outcomes:

Correlation