Comparison of Two Different Glenoid Bone Loss Calculation Methods using Three-Dimensional Computed Tomography
Introduction: An accurate estimation of the glenoid bone loss is an important factor in management of glenohumeral instability. Three-dimensional Computed Tomography (CT) technique is the most widely used modality. Various methods are used for glenoid bone loss calculations on CT. Aim: To compare th...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
JCDR Research and Publications Private Limited
2019-11-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://jcdr.net/articles/PDF/13276/42549_CE[Ra1]_F(SHU)_PF1(AJ_OM)_PFA_(PoG_OM)_PN(SL).pdf |
| _version_ | 1819093808009183232 |
|---|---|
| author | Abhijit D Pawar Varsha P Rangankar Priya R Bhole |
| author_facet | Abhijit D Pawar Varsha P Rangankar Priya R Bhole |
| author_sort | Abhijit D Pawar |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Introduction: An accurate estimation of the glenoid bone loss is an important factor in management of glenohumeral instability. Three-dimensional Computed Tomography (CT) technique is the most widely used modality. Various methods are used for glenoid bone loss calculations on CT. Aim: To compare the two methods of glenoid bone loss evaluation namely, Griffith’s and Best fit circle method using three-dimensional CT. Materials and Methods: A retrospective study was conducted in which a total of 34 patients with recurrent shoulder dislocations who underwent computed tomography, were included in the study. Scans were reconstructed using multiplanar reconstructions and bone loss was evaluated using the Griffith’s index and Best fit circle method. Quantitative data were calculated as mean±SD. The chi-squared test was used to determine the p-value. Results: The mean for percentage glenoid bone loss using Griffith method was 18.8±6.6 and by best fit circle method was 18.8±5.9. The p-value was 1 and the t value was 0, proving that there is no statistical difference between both these tests. Conclusion: The results of the study showed that best fit circle method is comparable to Griffith’s method for estimation of bone loss (p=1) and can be used alone on the affected glenoid. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-21T23:17:23Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-6e55384adbe440aaa8e4c19f64033838 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2249-782X 0973-709X |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-21T23:17:23Z |
| publishDate | 2019-11-01 |
| publisher | JCDR Research and Publications Private Limited |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research |
| spelling | doaj.art-6e55384adbe440aaa8e4c19f640338382022-12-21T18:46:53ZengJCDR Research and Publications Private LimitedJournal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research2249-782X0973-709X2019-11-011311TC01TC0310.7860/JCDR/2019/42549.13276Comparison of Two Different Glenoid Bone Loss Calculation Methods using Three-Dimensional Computed TomographyAbhijit D Pawar0Varsha P Rangankar1Priya R Bhole2Professor, Department of Radiology, Smt. Kashibai Navale Medical College and General Hospital, Narhe, Pune, Maharashtra, India.Professor, Department of Radiology, Dr. D. Y. Patil Medical College, Hospital and Research Centre, Sant Tukaram Nagar, Pimpri, Pune, Maharashtra, India.Senior Resident, Department of Radiology, JNU Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Center, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India.Introduction: An accurate estimation of the glenoid bone loss is an important factor in management of glenohumeral instability. Three-dimensional Computed Tomography (CT) technique is the most widely used modality. Various methods are used for glenoid bone loss calculations on CT. Aim: To compare the two methods of glenoid bone loss evaluation namely, Griffith’s and Best fit circle method using three-dimensional CT. Materials and Methods: A retrospective study was conducted in which a total of 34 patients with recurrent shoulder dislocations who underwent computed tomography, were included in the study. Scans were reconstructed using multiplanar reconstructions and bone loss was evaluated using the Griffith’s index and Best fit circle method. Quantitative data were calculated as mean±SD. The chi-squared test was used to determine the p-value. Results: The mean for percentage glenoid bone loss using Griffith method was 18.8±6.6 and by best fit circle method was 18.8±5.9. The p-value was 1 and the t value was 0, proving that there is no statistical difference between both these tests. Conclusion: The results of the study showed that best fit circle method is comparable to Griffith’s method for estimation of bone loss (p=1) and can be used alone on the affected glenoid.https://jcdr.net/articles/PDF/13276/42549_CE[Ra1]_F(SHU)_PF1(AJ_OM)_PFA_(PoG_OM)_PN(SL).pdfbankart’s lesionbest fit methodgriffith’s methodshoulder dislocation |
| spellingShingle | Abhijit D Pawar Varsha P Rangankar Priya R Bhole Comparison of Two Different Glenoid Bone Loss Calculation Methods using Three-Dimensional Computed Tomography Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research bankart’s lesion best fit method griffith’s method shoulder dislocation |
| title | Comparison of Two Different Glenoid Bone Loss Calculation Methods using Three-Dimensional Computed Tomography |
| title_full | Comparison of Two Different Glenoid Bone Loss Calculation Methods using Three-Dimensional Computed Tomography |
| title_fullStr | Comparison of Two Different Glenoid Bone Loss Calculation Methods using Three-Dimensional Computed Tomography |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Two Different Glenoid Bone Loss Calculation Methods using Three-Dimensional Computed Tomography |
| title_short | Comparison of Two Different Glenoid Bone Loss Calculation Methods using Three-Dimensional Computed Tomography |
| title_sort | comparison of two different glenoid bone loss calculation methods using three dimensional computed tomography |
| topic | bankart’s lesion best fit method griffith’s method shoulder dislocation |
| url | https://jcdr.net/articles/PDF/13276/42549_CE[Ra1]_F(SHU)_PF1(AJ_OM)_PFA_(PoG_OM)_PN(SL).pdf |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT abhijitdpawar comparisonoftwodifferentglenoidbonelosscalculationmethodsusingthreedimensionalcomputedtomography AT varshaprangankar comparisonoftwodifferentglenoidbonelosscalculationmethodsusingthreedimensionalcomputedtomography AT priyarbhole comparisonoftwodifferentglenoidbonelosscalculationmethodsusingthreedimensionalcomputedtomography |