Ian Peeters1, Thomas Braeckevelt1, Stijn Herregodts2, Tanneke Palmans3, Lieven De Wilde1, Alexander Van Tongel1. 1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium. 2. Department of Electrical Energy, Metal, Mechanical Construction & Systems, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium. 3. Department of Rehabilitation Sciences and Physiotherapy, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous cadaveric kinematic studies on acromioclavicular injuries described mainly rotational differences during humerothoracic movements. Although isolated scapulothoracic movements are also often performed during activities of daily life and can be painful after acromioclavicular injuries, they have not been extensively studied. Further, the analysis of joint translations in kinematic studies has received little attention compared with biomechanical studies. HYPOTHESIS: A kinematic analysis of joint motions in the intact shoulder versus a shoulder with Rockwood V injury would demonstrate a different pattern of kinematic alterations during humerothoracic and scapulothoracic movements. STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive laboratory study. METHODS: A kinematic analysis was performed in 14 cadaveric shoulders during 3 humerothoracic passive movements (coronal and sagittal plane elevation and horizontal adduction) and 3 scapulothoracic passive movements (protraction, retraction, and shrug). An optical navigation system registered rotational motions in the sternoclavicular, scapulothoracic, and acromioclavicular joints in the intact and Rockwood V conditions. In the acromioclavicular joint, mediolateral, anteroposterior, and superoinferior translations were also analyzed. RESULTS: In the Rockwood V condition, a significant increase in clavicular elevation in the sternoclavicular joint during both humerothoracic and scapulothoracic movements was demonstrated, whereas a significant decrease in posterior rotation of the clavicle occurred only during humerothoracic movements. In the scapulothoracic joint, the scapular position changed most significantly during protraction. In the acromioclavicular joint, the scapular tilting position was altered significantly during both humerothoracic and scapulothoracic movements, whereas the scapular rotational position changed only during coronal and sagittal plane elevation. The largest significant changes in the scapular protraction position were seen during protraction movement. Further, in the acromioclavicular joint there was a significant inferior translation of the scapula during all motions, a significant anterior translation during protraction and horizontal adduction, and a significant posterior translation during coronal plane elevation. Mediolaterally, the acromial end of the scapula slid further under the distal clavicle during protraction than during horizontal adduction. CONCLUSION: Large kinematic differences were seen between the intact state and a Rockwood V lesion not only during humerothoracic movements but also during scapulothoracic movements in the cadaveric model. During humerothoracic movements, rotational differences were mainly caused by alterations in the clavicular position. In contrast, during protraction, the alterations in the scapular position were the dominant factor. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study demonstrates that protraction induces larger kinematic alterations than horizontal adduction in acromioclavicular injuries and can therefore be included in both clinical examination and kinematic analyses to identify lesions more clearly.
BACKGROUND: Previous cadaveric kinematic studies on acromioclavicular injuries described mainly rotational differences during humerothoracic movements. Although isolated scapulothoracic movements are also often performed during activities of daily life and can be painful after acromioclavicular injuries, they have not been extensively studied. Further, the analysis of joint translations in kinematic studies has received little attention compared with biomechanical studies. HYPOTHESIS: A kinematic analysis of joint motions in the intact shoulder versus a shoulder with Rockwood V injury would demonstrate a different pattern of kinematic alterations during humerothoracic and scapulothoracic movements. STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive laboratory study. METHODS: A kinematic analysis was performed in 14 cadaveric shoulders during 3 humerothoracic passive movements (coronal and sagittal plane elevation and horizontal adduction) and 3 scapulothoracic passive movements (protraction, retraction, and shrug). An optical navigation system registered rotational motions in the sternoclavicular, scapulothoracic, and acromioclavicular joints in the intact and Rockwood V conditions. In the acromioclavicular joint, mediolateral, anteroposterior, and superoinferior translations were also analyzed. RESULTS: In the Rockwood V condition, a significant increase in clavicular elevation in the sternoclavicular joint during both humerothoracic and scapulothoracic movements was demonstrated, whereas a significant decrease in posterior rotation of the clavicle occurred only during humerothoracic movements. In the scapulothoracic joint, the scapular position changed most significantly during protraction. In the acromioclavicular joint, the scapular tilting position was altered significantly during both humerothoracic and scapulothoracic movements, whereas the scapular rotational position changed only during coronal and sagittal plane elevation. The largest significant changes in the scapular protraction position were seen during protraction movement. Further, in the acromioclavicular joint there was a significant inferior translation of the scapula during all motions, a significant anterior translation during protraction and horizontal adduction, and a significant posterior translation during coronal plane elevation. Mediolaterally, the acromial end of the scapula slid further under the distal clavicle during protraction than during horizontal adduction. CONCLUSION: Large kinematic differences were seen between the intact state and a Rockwood V lesion not only during humerothoracic movements but also during scapulothoracic movements in the cadaveric model. During humerothoracic movements, rotational differences were mainly caused by alterations in the clavicular position. In contrast, during protraction, the alterations in the scapular position were the dominant factor. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study demonstrates that protraction induces larger kinematic alterations than horizontal adduction in acromioclavicular injuries and can therefore be included in both clinical examination and kinematic analyses to identify lesions more clearly.