Glenoid Bone Loss Determination: Validity and Reliability of the Constellation Technique Versus the Sagittal Best Fit Circle Technique.

Abstract

ObjectiveTo propose a new method for glenoid bone loss measurement, the constellation technique (CST); determine its reliability and accuracy; and compare the validity of CST with that of the conventional technique (CVT) and standard measurements for ratio calculation.Materials and MethodsSixty shoulders with intact glenoids and no glenohumeral instability and arthritis underwent CT scans. Simulated osteotomies were conducted on the 3D models of glenoids at two cutting locations, expressed as clock face times (2:30–4:20; 1:30–5:00). Two experienced surgeons compared three methods for glenoid bone loss measurement; CVT (best-fit circle), CST (‘5S’ steps), and standard measurement. Eight undergraduates remeasured five randomly chosen shoulders with moderate to severe bone loss. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated for raters.ResultsWith a defect range between 2:30 and 4:20, all 60 glenoids demonstrated minimal bone loss (< 15%); while between 1:30 and 5:00, 42 shoulders were with moderate bone loss (15–20%), and 18 shoulders with severe bone loss (≥ 20%). For experienced raters, no significant differences were noted between protocos for all categories of bone loss (p ≥ 0.051), with good inter- and intraobserver reliability indicated by ICC. For novice raters, post hoc Tukey analysis found that CST was more accurate in one patient with a standard mean bone loss of 23.2% ± 1.9% compared with CVT.ConclusionThe CST turned the key step of glenoid defect evaluation from deciding an en face view to determining the glenoid inferior rim. The protocol is simple, accurate, and reproducible, especially for novice raters.