ReviewJSES reviews, reports, and techniques2027
Clinical classification of Hill-Sachs lesions: a systematic review of radiographic measurement techniques.
Review in JSES reviews, reports, and techniques, 2027. 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: A Hill-Sachs lesion (HSL) is a significant risk factor for recurrent shoulder instability and an indication for surgery. Currently, several available methods exist to measure these lesions on imaging, combined into a multitude of classification and grading systems. There is no consensus on a universal classification system for HSLs leading to extensive heterogeneity in how surgeons classify lesions and identify surgical necessity. The purpose of this review is to provide a comprehensive overview of established HSL classification measures that may guide future HSL classification systems. Methods: A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Scopus was conducted up to June 20, 2025, following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Inclusion criteria consisted of peer-reviewed human studies using imaging to evaluate HSL. Exclusion criteria were reverse HSLs, reviews, case reports, cadaveric, and biomechanical studies. Risk of bias was assessed via the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies criteria. Results: This study identified 39 studies pertaining to HSL classification or grading. Depth (21 studies), width (20), glenoid track/Hill-Sachs interval (18), volume (9), and location/medialization (9) were the 5 most commonly used measurements in classification. Wide variability exists in how each of these measurements should be made, and differing levels of agreement on their usefulness in different contexts. Of included measurements, the pooled conclusions on lesion depth, width, and location on severity were most consistent. Conclusion: This study highlights the most common methods and measurements used to classify HSLs in the current literature. Width, depth, and glenoid track calculations were by far the most prevalent measurements, often being incorporated into larger classification criteria. By breaking down the published classification systems into individual measurements, this review aims to help guide future standardized HSL classification criteria.
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.