Analysis of reliability and validity of different methods for quantifying the proportion of shoulder glenoid defect
10.3760/cma.j.cn121113-20240524-00312
- VernacularTitle:不同方法量化肩关节盂骨缺损比例的信度和效度分析
- Author:
Huachen LIU
1
;
Songyan LI
;
Yiqi YANG
;
Youzhi CAI
;
Bin WANG
Author Information
1. 浙江大学医学院附属第一医院骨科，杭州 310006
- Keywords:
Shoulder joint;
Glenoid cavity;
Radiometry;
Tomography, spiral computed;
Bone defect
- From:
Chinese Journal of Orthopaedics
2024;44(21):1416-1423
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To evaluate the reliability and validity of different quantitative methods based on CT images to evaluate the proportion of shoulder glenoid defect.Methods:Four shoulder joint specimens with no trauma, osteoarthritis or deformity were used, including 2 females and 2 males; the average age of death was 58±10 years old; all the specimens were prepared with a standard method with no bone defect occurring before preparation. A glenoid bone defect model was established with each specimen being cut into four defect gradient defects of approximately 8%, 16%, 24%, and 32% in proportion in sequence. A total of 16 samples were obtained. Physical photography and CT image reconstruction were performed on the 16 samples respectively. A total of 8 quantitative methods were used to quantify bone defects, which were surface area method, superimposed circle method, Barchilon method, Pico method, Shaha method, Griffith method, Sugaya method, and Giles method. Intraclass correlation (ICC) using a consistency model was used to evaluate reliability. Paired t-test was used to evaluate validity, with the physical measurement of the specimens using the surface area method as the reference standard. Result:The consistency ICC of each quantitative method was greater than 0.9, and all had high reliability. Combining the results of all bone defect gradients and imaging images, the surface area method had the best validity, which was 0.83%±0.75%; the Barchilon method came second, which was 0.91%±0.93%; the superimposed circle method and the Pico method had good validity, which were 0.99%±0.87% and 1.27%±1.09%, respectively; the Shaha method, the Griffith method, and the Sugaya method had poor validity, which were 6.11%±1.56%, 5.06%±1.35%, and 6.02%±1.61%, respectively; the Giles method had the worst validity, which was 8.40%±3.08%. Conclusion:In clinical practice, surface area method and superimposed circle method are the most reliable to quantify the proportion of bone defect if they can be performed. Otherwise, linear measurement of Barchilon method is the favored method while PICO method is the favored method for angle measurement.
