William E Janes1, J M Brown, J M Essenberg, J R Engsberg. 1. Program in Occupational Therapy, Washington University School of Medicine, Campus Box 8505, 4444 Forest Park Avenue, St. Louis, MO 63108-2212 USA ; Department of Neurosurgery, Washington University School of Medicine, Campus Box 8111, 660 S. Euclid Ave, St. Louis, MO 63110 USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Scapula mobility complicates upper extremity kinematics assessment. Existing methods are diverse, providing inconsistent results. The current gold standard (bone pins) is prohibitively invasive. The purposes of the current study are to describe a virtual projection alternative to surface markers for video motion capture (VMC) of the scapula and to compare the results of the projection and surface marker methods to the results of similar existing methods. METHODS: Ten participants were evaluated using VMC. Surface markers were applied to the trunk and arm in accordance with existing guidelines. Three markers were affixed to plastic base on the skin over the acromion process. Other scapular landmarks were digitized in a neutral position. These landmarks' locations were defined in reference to the acromion cluster and used to generate the projection. Humerothoracic, glenohumeral, and scapulothoracic kinematics were evaluated during shoulder abduction, flexion, and scaption. Joint angles produced by the surface markers and the projection were compared by Bonferroni-adjusted t tests. The results were compared to prior findings in the literature. RESULTS: The projection resulted in greater scapulothoracic upward rotation, internal rotation, and anterior-posterior tilt and less glenohumeral elevation (p < .0055) than did surface markers. The virtual scapula produced greater estimates of scapular mobility than did surface markers, corresponding to pre-existing results from similar methodologies. CONCLUSIONS: The result is a noninvasive measurement tool that produces different and superior results than do scapula surface markers. Measuring scapula kinematics via VMC without bone pins will facilitate future investigations into interactions between upper extremity injury, kinematics, and activity performance.
BACKGROUND: Scapula mobility complicates upper extremity kinematics assessment. Existing methods are diverse, providing inconsistent results. The current gold standard (bone pins) is prohibitively invasive. The purposes of the current study are to describe a virtual projection alternative to surface markers for video motion capture (VMC) of the scapula and to compare the results of the projection and surface marker methods to the results of similar existing methods. METHODS: Ten participants were evaluated using VMC. Surface markers were applied to the trunk and arm in accordance with existing guidelines. Three markers were affixed to plastic base on the skin over the acromion process. Other scapular landmarks were digitized in a neutral position. These landmarks' locations were defined in reference to the acromion cluster and used to generate the projection. Humerothoracic, glenohumeral, and scapulothoracic kinematics were evaluated during shoulder abduction, flexion, and scaption. Joint angles produced by the surface markers and the projection were compared by Bonferroni-adjusted t tests. The results were compared to prior findings in the literature. RESULTS: The projection resulted in greater scapulothoracic upward rotation, internal rotation, and anterior-posterior tilt and less glenohumeral elevation (p < .0055) than did surface markers. The virtual scapula produced greater estimates of scapular mobility than did surface markers, corresponding to pre-existing results from similar methodologies. CONCLUSIONS: The result is a noninvasive measurement tool that produces different and superior results than do scapula surface markers. Measuring scapula kinematics via VMC without bone pins will facilitate future investigations into interactions between upper extremity injury, kinematics, and activity performance.
Authors: Young W Kwon; Vivek J Pinto; Jangwhon Yoon; Mark A Frankle; Page E Dunning; Ali Sheikhzadeh Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2011-10-29 Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: Amy G Mell; Suzanne LaScalza; Patrick Guffey; Jennifer Ray; Mike Maciejewski; James E Carpenter; Richard E Hughes Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2005 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: Jason E Hsu; David Andrew Hulet; Chris McDonald; Anastasia Whitson; Stacy M Russ; Frederick A Matsen Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2018-07-09 Impact factor: 3.075