Skip to search boxSkip to navigationSkip to main content

Mathematical modeling of glenoid bone loss demonstrate differences in calculations that May affect surgical decision making

  • Stephen A. Parada(corresponding author)
    ,
  • Matthew C. Jones
    ,
  • Mikalyn T. DeFoor
    ,
  • B. Gage Griswold
    ,
  • Aaron D. Roberts
    ,
  • Matthew T. Provencher
*Corresponding author for this work
  • ,
  • Medical College of Georgia
    ,
  • Winn Army Community Hospital
    ,
  • Steadman Philippon Research Institute
Scholary Output:
Contribution to journal
Article
Research
Peer-review

Abstract

Objective: Two glenoid bone loss calculations are compared across a range of anatomic glenoid sizes. Methods: 20 cadaveric paired glenoid diameters were measured to create glenoid models with bone loss calculated in 1 mm linear increments up to 50% bone loss comparing the linear measurement percentage (LMP) to the circle line method (CLM) gold standard. Results: The LMP overestimates glenoid bone loss at every potential 1 mm increment across each glenoid model until bone loss reaches 50%. Conclusion: The widely-used LMP method overestimates bone loss compared to a gold standard potentially misguiding surgeons towards bony reconstruction in shoulder instability during preoperative planning.

Publication Information

Output type

Scholary Output:
Contribution to journal
Article
Research
Peer-review

Original language

English (US)

Pages from-to (Number of pages)

Pages 402-407 (6 pages)

Journal (Volume, Issue Number)

Journal of Orthopaedics (Volume 22)

Publication milestones

  • Published - 11/01/2020

Publication status

Published - 11/01/2020

Publication IDs

  • Scopus: 85091600314

Publication metrics

Metrics

Scopus
citations
Fractional count
1
Fractional count
0.17
Fractional count
5
Fractional count
0.83
Fractional count
1
Fractional count
1
SciVal
FWCI
1.34
SciVal
Author count
6
SciVal
citations
2
SciVal
Paper percentile
78

PlumX, opens in new tab

Citation count
8
Captures
8