ArticleOpen access journal of sports medicine2014
Validity of arthroscopic measurement of glenoid bone loss using the bare spot.
Article in Open access journal of sports medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Current Methods Used to Evaluate Glenoid Bone Loss: A Survey of Orthopaedic Surgeons.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2025Article
- Is Revision Arthroscopic Bankart Repair a Viable Option? A Systematic Review of Recurrent Instability following Bankart Repair.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Osseous variations associated with physiological thinning of the glenoid articular cartilage: an osteological study with CT, MRI and arthroscopic correlations.Skeletal radiology · 2023Article
- Current Concepts in the Measurement of Glenohumeral Bone Loss.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2023Review
- [Current concepts of diagnostic techniques and measurement methods for bone defect in patient with anterior shoulder instability].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2019Review
- Is the Bare Spot reliable for the bone loss measurement?Shoulder & elbow · 2019Article
- Estimation of anterior glenoid bone loss area using the ratio of bone defect length to the distance from posterior glenoid rim to the centre of the glenoid.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2018Article
- BARE SPOT LOCATION IN GLENOID CAVITY: COMPARISON BETWEEN ARTHROSCOPY AND CT SCAN.Acta ortopedica brasileiraArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeOur aim was to test the validity of using the bare spot method to quantify glenoid bone loss arthroscopically in patients with shoulder instability.
methodsTwenty-seven patients with no evidence of instability (18 males, nine females; mean age 59.1 years) were evaluated arthroscopically to assess whether the bare spot is consistently located at the center of the inferior glenoid. Another 40 patients with glenohumeral anterior instability who underwent shoulder arthroscopy (30 males, ten females; mean age 25.9 years) were evaluated for glenoid bone loss with preoperative three-dimensional computed tomography (3D-CT) and arthroscopic examination. In patients without instability, the distances from the bare spot of the inferior glenoid to the anterior (Da) and posterior (Dp) glenoid rim were measured arthroscopically. In patients with instability, we compared the percentage glenoid bone loss calculated using CT versus arthroscopic measurements.
resultsAmong patients without instability, the bare spot could not be identified in three of 27 patients. Da (9.5±1.2 mm) was smaller than Dp (10.1±1.5 mm), but it was not significantly different. However, only 55% of glenoids showed less than 1 mm of difference between Da and Dp, and 18% showed more than 2 mm difference in length. The bare spot could not be identified in five of 40 patients with instability. Pearson's correlation coefficient showed significant (P<0.001) and strong (R (2)=0.63) correlation in percentage glenoid bone loss between the 3D-CT and arthroscopy method measurements. However, in ten shoulders (29%), the difference in percentage glenoid bone loss between 3D-CT and arthroscopic measurements was greater than 5%.
conclusionThe bare spot was not consistently located at the center of the inferior glenoid, and the arthroscopic measurement of glenoid bone loss using the bare spot as a landmark was inaccurate in some patients with anterior glenohumeral instability. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prospective comparative study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.