Contribution of the reverse endoprosthesis to glenohumeral kinematics.
After placement of a reverse shoulder endoprosthesis, range of motion is usually still compromised. To what extent this occurs from limitation in motion of the reverse endoprosthesis is, however, unclear. We measured the motion pattern of 16 patients (18 shoulders) during three active and passive range of motion tasks using a six degree-of-freedom electromagnetic tracking device. Despite rotator cuff deficiencies, glenohumeral elevation contributed roughly two-thirds of the total thoracohumeral elevation, which is comparable to healthy subjects. However, patients could not actively use the full range of motion provided by the prosthesis. Although we found considerable interindividual differences in shoulder kinematics, the limitation in glenohumeral range of motion appears related to a lack of generated muscle force and not the design of the prosthesis.
Bergmann
Jeroen H M
JH
Rehabilitation Centre, Duyvensz-Nagel Research Laboratory, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
de Leeuw
M
M
Janssen
Thomas W J
TW
Veeger
DirkJan H E J
DH
Willems
W J
WJ
D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D001132:Arm / Q000503:physiopathology*; D019643:Arthroplasty, Replacement / Q000295:instrumentation; D055590:Electromagnetic Phenomena; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007595:Joint Prosthesis; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009068:Movement; D053580:Muscle Strength; D011474:Prosthesis Design; D016059:Range of Motion, Articular; D020127:Recovery of Function; D012782:Shoulder / Q000503:physiopathology / Q000601:surgery*; D012815:Signal Processing, Computer-Assisted; D016896:Treatment Outcome