ReviewSkeletal radiology2026
CT-based methods for the assessment of glenoid bone loss.
Review in Skeletal radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Acute glenoid rim fractures: reliability of linear and surface area methods for CT-based bone loss assessment.Skeletal radiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recurrent anterior shoulder dislocation often causes progressive damage and bone loss of the anteroinferior glenoid rim, which is a key factor in persistent shoulder instability. Correct measurement of bone loss is essential before surgery, as it helps decide whether a soft tissue repair is sufficient or if a bone graft procedure, such as the Latarjet, is required. In the past, arthroscopy was considered the standard method for evaluating glenoid bone loss, using the so-called "bare spot" as a reference point. However, this landmark is not always visible and has shown poor reliability, which has reduced its clinical value. For this reason, imaging methods with CT and MRI are now preferred. One of the best-known imaging techniques is the PICO CT method, which calculates bone loss by inscribing the glenoid in a circle. Although widely used, this method has significant limitations because the glenoid surface is not truly circular. As a result, variability between observers is high, and clinical accuracy is reduced. To improve precision, the PARMA method was developed. This technique uses curved multiplanar CT reconstructions (cMPRs) to follow the real concavity of the glenoid surface. Cadaveric studies have shown that PARMA is more accurate and reproducible than traditional CT methods, with good agreement compared to high-precision laser scanning. In addition, Hill-Sachs lesions must also be evaluated. The on-track/off-track concept combines humeral and glenoid bone loss to predict the risk of recurrent dislocation. Off-track lesions have a higher chance of surgical failure if treated with soft tissue repair alone and usually require bone procedures. Overall, modern CT-based techniques and combined lesion assessment improve accuracy and allow more tailored treatment of shoulder instability. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the CT methods most employed to quantify glenoid bone loss in traumatic shoulder instability, emphasizing their strengths and limitations.
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.