Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery 6/2017

01-06-2017 | Orthopaedic Surgery

Three-dimensional motion analysis for validation of shoulder internal rotation

Authors: Michael W. Maier, Sarah Erhard, Mirjam Niklasch, Thomas Bruckner, Sebastian I. Wolf, Felix Zeifang, Patric Raiss

Published in: Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery | Issue 6/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

10% of the points for the Constant–Murley score (CMS) are allocated for the capacity for internal rotation (IR), measured as unassisted active movement of the dorsum of the hand or the thumb to reach different anatomical landmarks. However, there is little information about the validity of this method and no three-dimensional measurement of the degree of IR that is necessary to reach these landmarks.

Methods

Sixteen volunteers with healthy shoulders were recruited. The degree of IR was defined using the following landmarks as described in the CMS: (1) lateral aspect of thigh, (2) buttock, (3) sacroiliac joint, (4) level of waist, (5) vertebra T12, (6) interscapular. The validity of IR measurement was assessed by simultaneous 3D motion analysis.

Results

Using the thumb as pointer, there were significant increases in IR from 39.3° at position 1 to 80.4° at position 2, followed by 105.1°, 108.6°, 110.1°, and 125.3° at position 3–6. Taking the dorsum of the hand as pointer, there were significant increases in IR between all positions, starting from 71.2° (position 1) and followed by 99.3°, 104.1°, 110.3°, 115.2°, and 119.7° at positions 2 to 6. Comparing the two measurement methods, a significant difference was found for the amount of IR between positions 1 and 2.

Conclusion

Measurement of IR as described in the CMS is a suitable method. However, there was an increase of only 10° in IR between positions 3 and 5, which may be hard to measure with a standard goniometer in clinical practice.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Constant CR, Murley AH (1987) A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1987(214):160–164 Constant CR, Murley AH (1987) A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1987(214):160–164
2.
go back to reference Constant CR et al (2008) A review of the Constant score: modifications and guidelines for its use. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 17(2):355–361CrossRefPubMed Constant CR et al (2008) A review of the Constant score: modifications and guidelines for its use. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 17(2):355–361CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Constant CR (1997) An evaluation of the Constant–Murley shoulder assessment. J Bone Joint Surg Br 79(4):695–696PubMed Constant CR (1997) An evaluation of the Constant–Murley shoulder assessment. J Bone Joint Surg Br 79(4):695–696PubMed
4.
go back to reference Johansson KM, Adolfsson LE (2005) Intraobserver and interobserver reliability for the strength test in the Constant–Murley shoulder assessment. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 14(3):273–278CrossRefPubMed Johansson KM, Adolfsson LE (2005) Intraobserver and interobserver reliability for the strength test in the Constant–Murley shoulder assessment. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 14(3):273–278CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Hirschmann MT et al (2010) Reliability of shoulder abduction strength measure for the Constant–Murley score. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468(6):1565–1571CrossRefPubMed Hirschmann MT et al (2010) Reliability of shoulder abduction strength measure for the Constant–Murley score. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468(6):1565–1571CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Blonna D et al (2012) Can we improve the reliability of the Constant–Murley score? J Shoulder Elbow Surg 21(1):4–12CrossRefPubMed Blonna D et al (2012) Can we improve the reliability of the Constant–Murley score? J Shoulder Elbow Surg 21(1):4–12CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Rettig O et al (2009) A new kinematic model of the upper extremity based on functional joint parameter determination for shoulder and elbow. Gait Posture 30(4):469–476CrossRefPubMed Rettig O et al (2009) A new kinematic model of the upper extremity based on functional joint parameter determination for shoulder and elbow. Gait Posture 30(4):469–476CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Kasten P et al (2010) Can shoulder arthroplasty restore the range of motion in activities of daily living? A prospective 3D video motion analysis study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 19(2 Suppl):59–65CrossRefPubMed Kasten P et al (2010) Can shoulder arthroplasty restore the range of motion in activities of daily living? A prospective 3D video motion analysis study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 19(2 Suppl):59–65CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Maier MW et al (2014) 3D motion capture using the HUX model for monitoring functional changes with arthroplasty in patients with degenerative osteoarthritis. Gait Posture 39(1):7–11CrossRefPubMed Maier MW et al (2014) 3D motion capture using the HUX model for monitoring functional changes with arthroplasty in patients with degenerative osteoarthritis. Gait Posture 39(1):7–11CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Wu G et al (2005) ISB recommendation on definitions of joint coordinate systems of various joints for the reporting of human joint motion—Part II: shoulder, elbow, wrist and hand. J Biomech 38(5):981–992CrossRefPubMed Wu G et al (2005) ISB recommendation on definitions of joint coordinate systems of various joints for the reporting of human joint motion—Part II: shoulder, elbow, wrist and hand. J Biomech 38(5):981–992CrossRefPubMed
11.
12.
13.
go back to reference Rocourt MH et al (2008) Evaluation of intratester and intertester reliability of the Constant–Murley shoulder assessment. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 17(2):364–369CrossRefPubMed Rocourt MH et al (2008) Evaluation of intratester and intertester reliability of the Constant–Murley shoulder assessment. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 17(2):364–369CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Richards RR et al (1994) A standardized method for the assessment of shoulder function. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 3(6):347–352CrossRefPubMed Richards RR et al (1994) A standardized method for the assessment of shoulder function. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 3(6):347–352CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Mallon WJ et al (1996) Use of vertebral levels to measure presumed internal rotation at the shoulder: a radiographic analysis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 5(4):299–306CrossRefPubMed Mallon WJ et al (1996) Use of vertebral levels to measure presumed internal rotation at the shoulder: a radiographic analysis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 5(4):299–306CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Ginn KA, Cohen ML, Herbert RD (2006) Does hand-behind-back range of motion accurately reflect shoulder internal rotation? J Shoulder Elbow Surg 15(3):311–314CrossRefPubMed Ginn KA, Cohen ML, Herbert RD (2006) Does hand-behind-back range of motion accurately reflect shoulder internal rotation? J Shoulder Elbow Surg 15(3):311–314CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Edwards TB et al (2002) Interobserver and intraobserver reliability of the measurement of shoulder internal rotation by vertebral level. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 11(1):40–42CrossRefPubMed Edwards TB et al (2002) Interobserver and intraobserver reliability of the measurement of shoulder internal rotation by vertebral level. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 11(1):40–42CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Hall JM et al (2014) Accuracy and reliability testing of two methods to measure internal rotation of the glenohumeral joint. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 23(9):1296–1300CrossRefPubMed Hall JM et al (2014) Accuracy and reliability testing of two methods to measure internal rotation of the glenohumeral joint. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 23(9):1296–1300CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Sraj SA, Internal Rotation Behind-the-Back Angle (2015) A reliable angular measurement for shoulder internal rotation behind the back. Sports Health (London) 7(4):299–302CrossRef Sraj SA, Internal Rotation Behind-the-Back Angle (2015) A reliable angular measurement for shoulder internal rotation behind the back. Sports Health (London) 7(4):299–302CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Three-dimensional motion analysis for validation of shoulder internal rotation
Authors
Michael W. Maier
Sarah Erhard
Mirjam Niklasch
Thomas Bruckner
Sebastian I. Wolf
Felix Zeifang
Patric Raiss
Publication date
01-06-2017
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery / Issue 6/2017
Print ISSN: 0936-8051
Electronic ISSN: 1434-3916
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-017-2656-4

Other articles of this Issue 6/2017

Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery 6/2017 Go to the issue