Advertisement

International Orthopaedics

, Volume 43, Issue 2, pp 379–386 | Cite as

Evaluation of three-dimensional in vivo scapular kinematics and scapulohumeral rhythm between shoulders with a clavicle hook plate and contralateral healthy shoulders

  • HoeJeong Chung
  • DooSup KimEmail author
  • Scott A. Banks
  • JongSang Son
  • YoungHo Kim
  • MyoungGi On
  • JunSeop Yeom
Original Paper
  • 172 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Acromioclavicular-coracoclavicular ligament injury occurs frequently, and the clavicle hook plate technique is an easy-to-use treatment method. However, complications such as subacromial impingement syndrome, synovitis, erosion, osteolysis, post-operative pain, and post-operative limitations in range of motion have been reported. We aimed to evaluate the use of the clavicle hook plate in the shoulder joints and to compare in vivo three-dimensional (3D) scapular kinematics and scapulohumeral rhythm between the shoulders with a clavicle hook plate and contralateral normal shoulder joints.

Methods

Ten male patients (aged 40.5 ± 14.4 years) who underwent clavicle hook plate fixation for an acromioclavicular-coracoclavicular ligament injury were selected. Computed tomography and fluoroscopy were conducted on both the shoulder joints, and 3D models were created. Using a 3D-2D model-image registration technique, we determined the 3D coordinates of the scapula, and we measured the scapular kinematics and scapulohumeral rhythm.

Results

The values for upward rotation, posterior tilt, and external rotation in the two groups increased in proportion with humeral elevation, showing significant differences between the two groups (p < 0.05). Overall, the value in the clavicle hook plate group (group H) was smaller than that in the control group (group C) by 23.5% (6.7°) of upward rotation and 64.8% (18.9°) of posterior tilt. However, the external rotation in group H was greater than that in group C by 32.3% (2.3°). In overall value, there was a significant difference not in upward rotation and external rotation, but in posterior tilt. During humeral elevation, the overall changes in scapulohumeral rhythm were 4.65 ± 2.45 in group H and 3.8 ± 0.8 in group C, and statistical differences were not detected between the two groups.

Conclusions

Clavicle hook plate fixation changes the scapular kinematics and scapulohumeral rhythm; thus, when clavicle hook plate fixation is complete, the implant should be promptly removed.

Keywords

Scapular kinematics Scapulohumeral rhythm Clavicle hook plate 3D/2D model-image registration technique 

Notes

Funding information

This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2015S1A5B8036349).

Compliance with ethical standards

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee and the Institutional Review Board of the Wonju College of Medicine, Yonsei University (YWMR-15-8-072). All patients gave written consent after the study was explained to them.

References

  1. 1.
    Mazzocca AD, Arciero RA, Bicos J (2007) Evaluation and treatment of acromioclavicular joint injuries. Am J Sports Med 35(2):316–329.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546506298022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Phillips AM, Smart C, Groom AF (1998) Acromioclavicular dislocation. Conservative or surgical therapy. Clin Orthop Relat Res 353:10–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pallis M, Cameron KL, Svoboda SJ, Owens BD (2012) Epidemiology of acromioclavicular joint injury in young athletes. Am J Sports Med 40(9):2072–2077.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546512450162 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chen CH, Dong QR, Zhou RK, Zhen HQ, Jiao YJ (2014) Effects of hook plate on shoulder function after treatment of acromioclavicular joint dislocation. Int J Clin Exp Med 7(9):2564–2570Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kienast B, Thietje R, Queitsch C, Gille J, Schulz AP, Meiners J (2011) Mid-term results after operative treatment of Rockwood grade III-V acromioclavicular joint dislocations with an AC-hook-plate. Eur J Med Res 16(2):52–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nadarajah R, Mahaluxmivala J, Amin A, Goodier DW (2005) Clavicular hook-plate: complications of retaining the implant. Injury 36(5):681–683.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2004.08.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Odak S, Burton D (2010) Early acromial erosion with the Synthes hook plate: an unusual complication and its treatment. Shoulder Elbow 2(3):182–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lin HY, Wong PK, Ho WP, Chuang TY, Liao YS, Wong CC (2014) Clavicular hook plate may induce subacromial shoulder impingement and rotator cuff lesion—dynamic sonographic evaluation. J Orthop Surg Res 9:6.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1749-799X-9-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    ElMaraghy AW, Devereaux MW, Ravichandiran K, Agur AM (2010) Subacromial morphometric assessment of the clavicle hook plate. Injury 41(6):613–619.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2009.12.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rockwood CA (1996) Rockwood and Green’s fractures in adults, vol vol 1, 4th edn. Lippincott-Raven, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kon Y, Nishinaka N, Gamada K, Tsutsui H, Banks SA (2008) The influence of handheld weight on the scapulohumeral rhythm. J Shoulder Elb Surg 17(6):943–946.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2008.05.047 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nishinaka N, Tsutsui H, Mihara K, Suzuki K, Makiuchi D, Kon Y, Wright TW, Moser MW, Gamada K, Sugimoto H, Banks SA (2008) Determination of in vivo glenohumeral translation using fluoroscopy and shape-matching techniques. J Shoulder Elb Surg 17(2):319–322.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2007.05.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mahfouz MR, Hoff WA, Komistek RD, Dennis DA (2003) A robust method for registration of three-dimensional knee implant models to two-dimensional fluoroscopy images. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 22(12):1561–1574.  https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2003.820027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Banks SA, Hodge WA (1996) Accurate measurement of three-dimensional knee replacement kinematics using single-plane fluoroscopy. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 43(6):638–649.  https://doi.org/10.1109/10.495283 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    T-a M-o, Hamai S, Miura H, Shimoto T, Higaki H, Fregly BJ, Iwamoto Y, Banks SA (2007) Can magnetic resonance imaging-derived bone models be used for accurate motion measurement with single-plane three-dimensional shape registration? J Orthop Res 25(7):867–872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hebert LJ, Moffet H, McFadyen BJ, Dionne CE (2002) Scapular behavior in shoulder impingement syndrome. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 83(1):60–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Matsuki K, Matsuki KO, Mu S, Yamaguchi S, Ochiai N, Sasho T, Sugaya H, Toyone T, Wada Y, Takahashi K, Banks SA (2011) In vivo 3-dimensional analysis of scapular kinematics: comparison of dominant and nondominant shoulders. J Shoulder Elb Surg 20(4):659–665.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2010.09.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kim YS, Yoo YS, Jang SW, Nair AV, Jin H, Song HS (2015) In vivo analysis of acromioclavicular joint motion after hook plate fixation using three-dimensional computed tomography. J Shoulder Elb Surg 24(7):1106–1111.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2014.12.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Inman VT, Saunders JB, Abbott LC (1996) Observations of the function of the shoulder joint. 1944. Clin Orthop Relat Res 330:3–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    McClure PW, Michener LA, Sennett BJ, Karduna AR (2001) Direct 3-dimensional measurement of scapular kinematics during dynamic movements in vivo. J Shoulder Elb Surg 10(3):269–277.  https://doi.org/10.1067/mse.2001.112954 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    de Groot JH (1999) The scapulo-humeral rhythm: effects of 2-D roentgen projection. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 14(1):63–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Doody SG, Freedman L, Waterland JC (1970) Shoulder movements during abduction in the scapular plane. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 51(10):595–604Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Freedman L, Munro RR (1966) Abduction of the arm in the scapular plane: scapular and glenohumeral movements. A roentgenographic study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 48(8):1503–1510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Poppen NK, Walker PS (1976) Normal and abnormal motion of the shoulder. J Bone Joint Surg Am 58(2):195–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    McQuade KJ, Smidt GL (1998) Dynamic scapulohumeral rhythm: the effects of external resistance during elevation of the arm in the scapular plane. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 27(2):125–133.  https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.1998.27.2.125 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Crosbie J, Kilbreath SL, Hollmann L, York S (2008) Scapulohumeral rhythm and associated spinal motion. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 23(2):184–192.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2007.09.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yano Y, Hamada J, Tamai K, Yoshizaki K, Sahara R, Fujiwara T, Nohara Y (2010) Different scapular kinematics in healthy subjects during arm elevation and lowering: glenohumeral and scapulothoracic patterns. J Shoulder Elb Surg 19(2):209–215.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2009.09.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bey MJ, Kline SK, Zauel R, Lock TR, Kolowich PA (2008) Measuring dynamic in-vivo glenohumeral joint kinematics: technique and preliminary results. J Biomech 41(3):711–714.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2007.09.029 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Matsuki K, Matsuki KO, Mu S, Kenmoku T, Yamaguchi S, Ochiai N, Sasho T, Sugaya H, Toyone T, Wada Y, Takahashi K, Banks SA (2014) In vivo 3D analysis of clavicular kinematics during scapular plane abduction: comparison of dominant and non-dominant shoulders. Gait Posture 39(1):625–627.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2013.06.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© SICOT aisbl 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Wonju College of MedicineYonsei University Wonju Severance Christian HospitalWonju-siRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical and Aerospace EngineeringUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA
  3. 3.Sensory Motor Performance ProgramRehabilitation Institute of ChicagoChicagoUSA
  4. 4.Department of Physical Medicine & RehabilitationNorthwestern UniversityChicagoUSA
  5. 5.Department of Biomechanical EngineeringYonsei UniversityWonjuSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations