Elbow helical axes of motion are not the same in physiologic and kinetic joint simulators.

Physiologic and kinetic joint simulators have been widely used for investigations of joint mechanics. The two types of simulator differ in the way joint motion is achieved; through prescribed motions and/or forces in kinetic joint simulators and by tendon loads in physiologic joint simulators. These two testing modalities have produced important insights, as in elucidating the importance of soft tissue structures to joint stability. However, the equivalence of the modalities has not been tested. This study sequentially tested five cadaveric elbows using both a physiologic simulator and a robot/6DOF system. Using position data from markers on the humerus and ulna, we calculated and compared the helical axes of motion of the specimens as the elbows were flexed from full extension. Six step size increments were used in the helical axis calculation. Marker position data at each test's full extension and full flexion point were also used to calculate a datum (overall) helical axis. The angles between the datum axis and step-wise movements were computed and stored. Increasing step size monotonically decreased the variability and the average conical angle encompassing the helical axes; a repeated measures ANOVA using test type (robot or physiologic simulator) and step size found that both type and step caused statistically significant differences (p<0.001). The large changes in helical axis angle observed for small changes in elbow flexion angle, especially in the robot tests, are a caveat for investigators using similar control algorithms. Controllers may need to include increased joint compliance and/or C(1) continuity to reduce variability.