A Clinical Comparison of Linear- and Surface Area-Based Methods of Measuring Glenoid Bone Loss.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine whether linear-based measurement significantly overestimates glenoid bone loss in comparison with surface area-based measurement in patients with recurrent anterior shoulder instability and glenoid bone loss. HYPOTHESIS: Linear-based measurement will significantly overestimate glenoid bone loss in comparison with surface area-based measurement in patients with anterior shoulder instability and glenoid bone loss. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Thirty patients with anterior shoulder instability underwent preoperative bilateral shoulder computed tomography (CT) scans. Three-dimensional CT (3D-CT) reconstruction with humeral head subtraction was performed to obtain an en face view of the 3D-CT glenoid. Glenoid bone loss was measured with the surface area and linear methods of measurement. Statistical analysis was performed with a paired 2-tailed t test. RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients (5 female and 23 male; mean age, 25.1 years; age range, 15-58 years) were included in the study; 17 patients underwent a glenoid augmentation procedure, and 11 underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair. The mean percentage glenoid bone loss calculated with the surface area and linear methods was 12.8% ± 8.0% and 17.5% ± 9.7% ( P < .0001), respectively. For the 17 patients who underwent glenoid augmentation, mean percentage bone loss with the surface area and linear methods was 16.6% ± 7.9% and 23.0% ± 8.0% ( P < .0001), respectively. CONCLUSION: Linear measurement of glenoid bone loss significantly overestimates bone loss compared with surface area measurement in patients with anterior glenoid bony defects. These results indicate that these different methods cannot be used interchangeably and cannot be used with the same critical thresholds for glenoid bone loss.

Suction evacuation of hemothorax: A prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Although tube thoracostomy is a common procedure after thoracic trauma, incomplete evacuation of fluid places the patient at risk for retained hemothorax. As little as 300 to 500 cm of blood may result in the need for an additional thoracostomy tube or, in more severe cases, lung entrapment and empyema. We hypothesized that suction evacuation of the thoracic cavity before tube placement would decrease the incidence of late complications. METHODS: Patients requiring tube thoracostomy within 96 hours of admission were prospectively identified and underwent suction evacuation of the pleural space (SEPS) before tube placement. These patients were compared to historical controls without suction evacuation. Demographics, admission vital signs, laboratory values, details of chest tube placement, and outcomes were collected on all patients. Multivariable logistic regression was used to compare outcomes between groups. RESULTS: A total of 199 patients were identified, consisting of 100 retrospective controls and 99 SEPS patients. There were no differences in age, sex, admission injury severity score or chest abbreviated injury score, admission laboratory values or vital signs, or hospital length of stay. Mean (SD) volume of hemothorax in SEPS patients was 220 (297) cm; with only 48% having a volume greater than 100 cm at the time of tube placement. Three patients developed empyema, and 19 demonstrated retained blood; there was no difference between SEPS and control patients. Suction evacuation of the pleural space was significantly protective against recurrent pneumothorax after chest tube removal (odds ratio, 0.332; 95% confidence interval, 0.148-0.745). CONCLUSION: Preemptive suction evacuation of the thoracic cavity did not have a significant impact on subsequent development of retained hemothorax or empyema. Suction evacuation of the pleural space significantly decreased incidence of recurrent pneumothorax after thoracostomy removal. Although the mechanism is unclear, such a benefit may make this simple procedure worthwhile. A larger sample size is required for validation and to determine if preemptive thoracic evacuation has a clinical benefit. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/care management study, level IV.