Is 13.5% the Right Number for Critical Bone Loss?
- 1 October 2022
- journal article
- letter
- Published by Elsevier BV in Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery
- Vol. 38 (10), 2773-2775
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2022.08.001
Abstract
No abstract availableKeywords
This publication has 33 references indexed in Scilit:
- The effect of sagittal rotation of the glenoid on axial glenoid width and glenoid version in computed tomography scan imagingJournal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, 2015
- Magnetic Resonance Imaging Evaluation of Normal Glenoid Length and Width: An Anatomic StudyArthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery, 2014
- Feasibility of an osteochondral allograft for biologic glenoid resurfacingJournal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, 2013
- Comparison of various imaging techniques to quantify glenoid bone loss in shoulder instabilityJournal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, 2013
- 3-D CT is the Most Reliable Imaging Modality When Quantifying Glenoid Bone LossClinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 2013
- Recurrent Shoulder Instability: Current Concepts for Evaluation and Management of Glenoid Bone LossJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 2010
- The instability severity index scoreThe Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British volume, 2007
- Contact between the glenoid and the humeral head in abduction, external rotation, and horizontal extension: A new concept of glenoid trackJournal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, 2007
- Risk Factors for Recurrence of Shoulder Instability After Arthroscopic Bankart RepairThe Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, 2006
- Traumatic glenohumeral bone defects and their relationship to failure of arthroscopic Bankart repairsArthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery, 2000