Reproducible Noninvasive Method for Evaluation of Glenoid Bone Loss by Multiplanar Reconstruction Curved Computed Tomographic Imaging Using a Cadaveric Model
Academic Article
Publication Date:
2013
Short description:
Reproducible Noninvasive Method for Evaluation of Glenoid Bone Loss by Multiplanar Reconstruction Curved Computed Tomographic Imaging Using a Cadaveric Model / DE FILIPPO, M., Castagna, A., Steinbach Lynne, S., Silva, M., Concari, G., Pedrazzi, G., Pogliacomi, F., Sverzellati, N., Petriccioli, D., Vitale, M., Ceccarelli, F., Zompatori, M., Rossi, C.. - In: ARTHROSCOPY. - ISSN 0749-8063. - 29:3(2013), pp. 471-477. [10.1016/j.arthro.2012.10.017]
abstract:
Purpose: To determine if the measurement of the glenoid surface by computed tomography (CT) with curved multiplanar
reconstructions (cMPR) in a cadaveric model is an accurate and reproducible technique. Methods: Ten dried
cadaveric glenoid specimens were used. Two glenoids were subsequently modified mechanically to induce a bony Bankart
lesion. Three skilled musculoskeletal radiologists performed cMPR on computed tomographic images of the glenoids; one
of the radiologists repeated the same measurements after 3 months. Two of the 3 operators used the traditional “flat” MPR
method as a control. An optical scanning system using a high-precision laser (CAM2 Laser Line Probe, Faro Technologies,
Lake Mary, FL) was used as a reference. From the data obtained, an evaluation was performed for variability, degree of
interoperator and intraoperator agreement, and degree of agreement between the laser and CT methods. Statistical
analysis was performed with PASW-SPSS, version 18 (IBM, Armonk, NY) and R, version 2.12 statistical package.
Results: The average difference between the 2 sets of cMPR measurements was approximately 1%, and maximum and
minimum values were between 6.02% and 0.29%. The flat MPR method showed mean differences of 16% when
compared with laser scanning, and maximum and minimum values were 31% and 8%, respectively. The interoperator
variability for the “curved” method was limited and showed a coefficient of variation ranging from 0.78% to 2.82%. The
Cronbach alpha coefficient for this set of measurements was alpha ¼ 0.995. There was little intraoperator variability with
the coefficient of variation between 0% and 2% and an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.989. Conclusions: The use
of cMPR computed tomographic imaging of the glenoid in a cadaveric model was found to be significantly more accurate
than conventional MPR (flat MPR). Moreover, cMPR CT is a reproducible technique providing reliable information despite
the relevant variable anatomy of the glenoid surface. This technique could reasonably also be used in a clinical setting as
a more accurate noninvasive method. Clinical of Relevance: This technique could also reasonably be used in a clinical
setting as a more accurate noninvasive method.
reconstructions (cMPR) in a cadaveric model is an accurate and reproducible technique. Methods: Ten dried
cadaveric glenoid specimens were used. Two glenoids were subsequently modified mechanically to induce a bony Bankart
lesion. Three skilled musculoskeletal radiologists performed cMPR on computed tomographic images of the glenoids; one
of the radiologists repeated the same measurements after 3 months. Two of the 3 operators used the traditional “flat” MPR
method as a control. An optical scanning system using a high-precision laser (CAM2 Laser Line Probe, Faro Technologies,
Lake Mary, FL) was used as a reference. From the data obtained, an evaluation was performed for variability, degree of
interoperator and intraoperator agreement, and degree of agreement between the laser and CT methods. Statistical
analysis was performed with PASW-SPSS, version 18 (IBM, Armonk, NY) and R, version 2.12 statistical package.
Results: The average difference between the 2 sets of cMPR measurements was approximately 1%, and maximum and
minimum values were between 6.02% and 0.29%. The flat MPR method showed mean differences of 16% when
compared with laser scanning, and maximum and minimum values were 31% and 8%, respectively. The interoperator
variability for the “curved” method was limited and showed a coefficient of variation ranging from 0.78% to 2.82%. The
Cronbach alpha coefficient for this set of measurements was alpha ¼ 0.995. There was little intraoperator variability with
the coefficient of variation between 0% and 2% and an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.989. Conclusions: The use
of cMPR computed tomographic imaging of the glenoid in a cadaveric model was found to be significantly more accurate
than conventional MPR (flat MPR). Moreover, cMPR CT is a reproducible technique providing reliable information despite
the relevant variable anatomy of the glenoid surface. This technique could reasonably also be used in a clinical setting as
a more accurate noninvasive method. Clinical of Relevance: This technique could also reasonably be used in a clinical
setting as a more accurate noninvasive method.
Iris type:
1.1 Articolo in rivista
List of contributors:
DE FILIPPO, Massimo; Castagna, Alessandro; Steinbach Lynne, S; Silva, Mario; Concari, Giorgio; Pedrazzi, Giuseppe; Pogliacomi, Francesco; Sverzellati, Nicola; Petriccioli, Dario; Vitale, Marco; Ceccarelli, Francesco; Zompatori, Maurizio; Rossi, Cristina
Published in: