1988
DOI: 10.1002/jor.1100060614
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Geometry of the humeroulnar joint

Abstract: Clinical results with elbow prostheses have been disappointing. A detailed knowledge of elbow joint geometry and mechanics is necessary to improve prosthetic design. In this study, the humeroulnar articulation of four human cadaver elbows was examined using surface analytic methods. In this article, the location of the transverse axis of elbow flexion-extension is suggested in relation to well-defined landmarks, the medial and lateral epicondyles, and subsequently to the line connecting their most lateral poin… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
61
0

Year Published

1988
1988
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 119 publications
(63 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
2
61
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Our results refute those of Shiba et al (1988), who worked out the geometry of the humero-ulnar joint by image-analysing photographs of thin sagittal sections. These authors certainly admitted the existence of different radii of curvature between the articular surfaces of the olecranon and coronoid process, but, unlike us, came to the conclusion that there is a certain "sloppiness" between humerus and ulna which must depend upon the greater diameter of the trochlear notch in comparison with the trochlea itself.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 85%
“…Our results refute those of Shiba et al (1988), who worked out the geometry of the humero-ulnar joint by image-analysing photographs of thin sagittal sections. These authors certainly admitted the existence of different radii of curvature between the articular surfaces of the olecranon and coronoid process, but, unlike us, came to the conclusion that there is a certain "sloppiness" between humerus and ulna which must depend upon the greater diameter of the trochlear notch in comparison with the trochlea itself.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 85%
“…The mechanical interface, or gimbal, between the subject and the HM component of the ACT 3D was locked to constrain movements to a plane such that during reaching or retrieving movements, the subject's arm and hand were in line with the center of rotation of the shoulder, thus preventing internal and external rotation at the shoulder. Subjects were manually placed in an initial position of 90° elbow flexion and 40° shoulder flexion using the acromium, ulnar and radial epicondyles, and the distal end of the third phalanx as anatomical landmarks (Zatsiorsky and Seluyanov 1985;Shiba et al 1988) with a goniometer. Custom software calculated the position of the shoulder and a display of an avatar of the arm was adjusted to mimic the subject's view of their actual arm configuration.…”
Section: Protocolmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The BIC was set to begin 1.1 cm proximal to the joint center in order to control for insertion point, which was fixed 4.51 cm distal to the axis of rotation (capitulum). This was assumed to be approximately the center of the insertion site, as the capitulum has a 1.06 cm radius (Shiba et al, 1987), the bicipital tuberosity is 2.5 cm distal from the radial head, and the insertion site is 2.2 cm long (Mazzocca et al, 2006). As per the MRIs, the muscle belly was set to end 11.2 cm proximal to the elbow joint.…”
Section: Development Of the Musculotendinous Unitmentioning
confidence: 99%