SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

vol.7 número4Bifacet dislocations of cervical spine: Acute management and outcomeEvaluating donor tissue for bacterial contamination at the South African National Tissue Bank índice de autoresíndice de assuntospesquisa de artigos
Home Pagelista alfabética de periódicos  

Serviços Personalizados



Links relacionados

  • Em processo de indexaçãoCitado por Google
  • Em processo de indexaçãoSimilares em Google


SA Orthopaedic Journal

versão On-line ISSN 2309-8309
versão impressa ISSN 1681-150X

SA orthop. j. vol.7 no.4 Pretoria Out./Dez. 2008




The position of the 'bare spot' - not central in the glenoid



TR CresswellI; JF de BeerII; D du ToitIII

IBM, FRCS(Ed)(Trauma & Orth), Dip Orth Eng
IIMBChB, MMed(Orth). Cape Shoulder Institute, Med Group, Parow, South Africa
IIIFCS(SA), FRCS, PhD. Department of Anatomy and Histology, University of Stellenbosch





Dislocation of the glenohumeral joint is often associated with a bony lesion of the antero-inferior glenoid rim. This can be assessed at arthroscopy using the 'bare spot' - an area in the central glenoid where articular cartilage is comparatively thin.
The aim of this study was to assess the bare spot in a large number of cadavers. Fifty cadavers with no known history of bone or joint disease were examined. The bare spot was present in nearly 90% of shoulders and is centrally placed in the antero-posterior plane. However, the bare spot is significantly further away from the antero-inferior rim of the glenoid by 1.4 mm. The median distance from bare spot to the anterior rim is 13.2 mm, while the median distance to the antero-inferior rim is 14.6 mm.
Bone loss of the antero-inferior glenoid is associated with failure of soft tissue repairs after shoulder dislocation. These data will help in the arthroscopic assessment of the glenoid and in decision-making for surgery for gleno-humeral instability.



“Full text available only in PDF format”




1. Sugaya H et al. Glenoid rim morphology in recurrent anterior glenohumeral instability. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003;85A(5):878-84.         [ Links ]

2. Itoi E et al. Quantitative assessment of classic anteroinferior bony Bankart lesions by radiography and computed tomography. Am J Sports Med 2003;31(1):112-18.         [ Links ]

3. Burkhart SS and de Beer JF. Traumatic glenohumeral bone defects and their relationship to failure of arthroscopic Bankart repairs: significance of the inverted-pear glenoid and the humeral engaging Hill-Sachs lesion. Arthroscopy 2000;17(7):677-94.         [ Links ]

4. Graichen H et al. Validation of cartilage volume and thickness measurements in the human shoulder with quantitative magnetic resonance imaging. Osteoarthritis & Cartilage 2003;11(7):475-82.         [ Links ]

5. Yeh LR et al. Evaluation of articular cartilage thickness of the humeral head and the glenoid fossa by MR arthrography: anatomic correlation in cadavers. Skeletal Radiology 1998;27(9):500-4.         [ Links ]

6. Burkhart SS, De Beer JF, Tehrany AM and Parten PM. Quantifying glenoid bone loss arthroscopically in shoulder instability. Arthroscopy 2002; 18(5):488-91.         [ Links ]

7. Burkhart SS and Danaceau SM. Articular arc length mismatch as a cause of failed Bankart repair. Arthroscopy 2000;16(7):740-4.         [ Links ]

8. Aigner F et al. Anatomical considerations regarding the "bare spot" ofthe glenoid cavity. Surg. RadiolAnat 2005; 26(4):308-11.         [ Links ]



Reprint requests:
Dr J de Beer
PO Box 15741
Panorama 7506
Western Cape e-mail:



This article was not submitted to an ethical committee for approval. The content of this article is the sole work of the authors. No benefits of any form have been derived from any commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article.

Creative Commons License Todo o conteúdo deste periódico, exceto onde está identificado, está licenciado sob uma Licença Creative Commons