Surgeon experience and measurement method influence consistency of glenoid bone loss assessment: a three-dimensional printing, computed tomography, and arthroscopy comparison

Le résumé fourni par la source

PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of arthroscopic glenoid bone loss (GBL) assessment and its influencing factors, and to compare the consistency of three-dimensional computed tomography (3D CT) and 3D printed measurements. METHODS: 3D printed models were created from the 3D CT images. Experts reviewed arthroscopic images to assess GBL, and a questionnaire was used to correlate assessment accuracy with surgeon age, experience, and annual surgical volume. Separately, ten residents measured each model three times using three methods: the linear method and best-fit circle method on 3D CT, and a manual method with vernier calipers on the physical models. Agreement was calculated using intra-group correlation coefficients (ICC). RESULTS: A statistically significant difference in assessment accuracy was found among surgeons with different annual surgical volumes (p = 0.029). Comparisons between the three measurement methods showed that the best-fit circle method yielded significantly higher values than both the linear and manual methods (p < 0.001). The manual method demonstrated the highest consistency across different times and observers (ICC 0.998 and 0.995, respectively), suggesting it is the most stable technique. CONCLUSION: The accuracy of arthroscopic GBL judgment varies with the surgeon’s annual surgical volume. While all three measurement methods show excellent agreement, the best-fit circle method provides significantly larger GBL measurements compared to the linear and manual methods. LEVELS OF EVIDENCE: Level II, Cross-Sectional Study.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.