ArticleOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2026
An Anatomic Study of the Human Glenoid Fossa: Implications for Preoperative Evaluation of Bone Loss in Patients With Traumatic Shoulder Instability.
Article in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Current methods to quantify glenoid bone loss after anterior shoulder instability assume that the inferior glenoid fossa represents a perfect circle with minimal side-to-side variability. Purposes/Hypotheses: The purpose of this study was to (1) determine normal glenoid parameters-including height, width, surface area (SA), and shape of the glenoid fossa as a function of glenoid notch type-and (2) characterize whether side-to-side, sex- and race-based differences exist in these parameters. It was hypothesized that the inferior glenoid would be better represented as an ellipse rather than a perfect circle, that side-to-side differences in glenoid SA would exist as a function of notch type, and that there would be sex and race-based differences for all other measured variables. Study Design: Descriptive laboratory study. Methods: A total of 58 pairs of human scapulae from individuals between 18 and 35 years of age at the time of death were randomly selected and stratified according to human race and sex. All specimens were digitized using a 3-dimensional laser scanner, and all parameters were calculated using MATLAB software. Descriptive statistics were computed on all dependent variables and were stratified by sex, race, and side. Generalized estimating equations models were used to compare group means. Intra- and interrater reliability of the notch classification was assessed. Results: Of the 58 matched left and right pairs (116 glenoid specimens), there were 30 Black women, 30 Black men, 26 White women, and 30 White men. Small but statistically significant side-to-side differences were found for nearly all linear and SA measurements. The left glenoid parameters, on average, have larger glenoid height (0.37 mm [95% CI, 0.15 to 0.59]; Conclusion: In this anatomic study, the inferior glenoid fossa was better represented by an ellipse than a circle, and small side-to-side differences were found between linear and SA measurements. The latter 2 findings contradict assumptions made by current techniques for calculating bone loss and therefore raise concern about their validity, especially those that depend on the placement of a circle on the glenoid fossa. Using the contralateral Clinical Relevance: To our knowledge, this is the first study to define the normal shape and SA of the inferior glenoid fossa in dry specimens and the first to attempt to stratify these data according to the anterior glenoid notch. The data from this study can be used to create validated methods to measure glenoid bone loss preoperatively to help determine when a glenoid bone augmentation procedure is indicated.
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.