A comparative analysis of manual glenoid version measurement using two- and three-dimensional computed tomography imaging techniques.
retrospective_cohort · Level III
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 40740043.
- Also identified by DOI 10.5397/cise.2025.00318 and PMC identifier 12415454.
- Licence recorded as CC BY-NC.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
Accurate measurement of glenoid version is essential for optimal implant positioning in shoulder arthroplasty. This study compared the accuracy and reliability of unformatted two-dimensional computed tomography (2D-CT), formatted 2D-CT, and three-dimensional CT (3D-CT) reconstructions in measuring glenoid version. Shoulder CT scans for arthroplasty were analyzed retrospectively. Glenoid version was measured at the estimated glenoid midpoint using unformatted and formatted 2D-CT in the scapular plane. Measurements from 3D-CT reconstructions using the Corrected Friedman Method were used as the control. Inter- and intra-observer reliability was calculated as well as minimally detectable difference. Sixty-five CT scans were analyzed (mean age, 61.7 years). Mean glenoid version was -3.48° (standard deviation [SD], 8.7°) on unformatted 2D-CT, -3.27° (SD, 8.15°) on formatted 2D-CT, and -4.25° (SD, 7.92°) on 3D-CT. Although no significant difference in mean values was observed (analysis of variance, P=0.245), formatted 2D-CT measurements were within 6° of 3D-CT in 95.4% of cases versus 83.1% for unformatted 2D-CT (P=0.023). Directional error occurred in 27.7% of unformatted scans and 16.9% of formatted scans. Inter-observer reliability was highest for 3D-CT (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]=0.83; 95% CI, 0.74-0.89), and intra-observer agreement was strongest for 3D-CT (ICC=0.91; 95% CI, 0.86-0.94), followed by formatted 2D-CT (ICC=0.83; 95% CI, 0.73-0.89) and unformatted 2D-CT (ICC=0.77; 95% CI, 0.65-0.85). 3D-CT reconstructions are widely considered the most accurate and reproducible method for glenoid version assessment, supported by multiple comparative imaging studies. Formatted 2D-CT provides a reliable alternative when 3D-CT is unavailable, significantly outperforming unformatted 2D-CT in both agreement with the 3D reference and intra- and inter-observer reliability. Level of evidence: IV.