AI Summary & Key Takeaways
AI InsightTherefore, in the preoperativeplanning and evaluation of glenoid-based pathologies, it would be more appropriate to evaluate both the bone and cartilage surface onMRI.
📌 3 Key Takeaways
Abstract
Background/aim: To determine whether or not there is a difference between the version of the bone and cartilage surfaces of theglenoid. Axial magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) slices were examined in order to evaluate the measurements taken based on both thecartilage and bone joint surfaces.Materials and methods: A retrospective evaluation was made of the MRI scans of 182 patients. All of the reviewers independentlymeasured the glenoid version angles of all of the patients from 1–182. The process was then repeated, with each reviewer takingsecond measurements of the angles from 1–182. Pearson correlation coefficient analysis was applied to evaluate the interactionand relationships between the measurements taken from the bone and cartilage. The intra- and interobserver interclass correlationcoefficients (ICCs) were assessed. Analysis of variance was applied to determine any interobserver significant differences.Results: The mean glenoid version was determined as –3.58 ± 4.08° in the bone-based measurements and –5.81 ± 4.30° in the cartilagebased measurements. The cartilage- and bone-based measurements were found to have inter- and intraobserver reliability. A statisticallysignificant difference was observed between the mean cartilage-based version and the mean bone-based version. Changes in thecartilage- and bone-based measurements were correlated; however, this change was not linear.Conclusion: The cartilage-based version showed a significant difference from the bone- based version. Therefore, in the preoperativeplanning and evaluation of glenoid-based pathologies, it would be more appropriate to evaluate both the bone and cartilage surface onMRI.