In vivo estimation of the glenohumeral joint centre by functional methods: Accuracy and repeatability assessment

Propagation of soft tissue artifacts to the center of rotation: A model for the correction of functional calibration techniques

“…Likewise, 283 the uncorrected CoR error (over 57 mm) was greater than the errors reported for human 284 joints using the same methods, which are normally lower than 40 mm (Cereatti et al, 285 2009). The relative performance of the error correction method might be overestimated 286 due to such great initial errors, but in any case, the error of the corrected CoR (between 287 3.6 and 11 mm) was lower than the 15-to-20 mm error reported for in vivo measures of 288 the GHJ (Lempereur et al, 2010;Nikooyan et al, 2011), in spite of the large initial 289 error. 290…”

“…It is often used to calibrate the hip joint 85 8 center, but has also been applied to the GHJ (Lempereur et al, 2010 …”

Double calibration: An accurate, reliable and easy-to-use method for 3D scapular motion analysis

“…The motion of the scapula with respect to the thorax was calculated for all methods using the Eular angle rotation order: external/ internal rotation (Y), upward/downward rotation (X) and anterior/posterior tilting (Z). The glenohumeral joint rotation center was estimated using the method of Gamage and Lasenby (2002) (Lempereur et al, 2010). The subjects performed movements of arm flexion/extension, abduction/adduction and circumduction.…”

Computational reverse shoulder prosthesis model: Experimental data and verification

“…As recommended by Wu et al (2005), whenever left shoulders were measured, the raw data was mirrored with respect to the sagittal plane. The glenohumeral (GH) joint center, which is necessary for the reconstruction of the local coordinate system of the humerus, was estimated via the least squares approach of Gamage and Lasenby (2002) due to its better accuracy (Lempereur et al, 2010). Note that the functional methods, which include the algorithm of Gamage and Lasenby (2002), are expected to be more suitable than the conventional methods for the estimation of the GH joint center because they do not require any anthropometric data, and thus can take into account the individual anatomy (Rettig et al, 2013).…”