Translational stiffness of the replaced shoulder joint

Oosterom, R.; Herder, Just L.; Helm, F.C.T. van der; Święszkowski, W.; Bersee, H.E.N.

doi:10.1016/s0021-9290(03)00192-1

Cited by 34 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For dislocation to occur in a ball and socket joint ( Fig. 1), the resultant force must be directed outside the socket surface [26]. If both ball and socket components are assumed to be rigid bodies, the dislocation force F S is determined by the ball-socket incident angle (constraint angle) and friction and is given by…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hierarchy of Stability Factors in Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty

Gutiérrez

Keller

Levy

et al. 2008

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

148

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty is being used more frequently to treat irreparable rotator cuff tears in the presence of glenohumeral arthritis and instability. To date, however, design features and functions of reverse shoulder arthroplasty, which may be associated with subluxation and dislocation of these implants, have been poorly understood. We asked: (1) what is the hierarchy of importance of joint compressive force, prosthetic socket depth, and glenosphere size in relation to stability, and (2) is this hierarchy defined by underlying and theoretically predictable joint contact characteristics? We examined the intrinsic stability in terms of the force required to dislocate the humerosocket from the glenosphere of eight commercially available reverse shoulder arthroplasty devices. The hierarchy of factors was led by compressive force followed by socket depth; glenosphere size played a much lesser role in stability of the reverse shoulder arthroplasty device. Similar results were predicted by a mathematical model, suggesting the stability was determined primarily by compressive forces generated by muscles.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hierarchy of Stability Factors in Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty

Gutiérrez

Keller

Levy

et al. 2008

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

148

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It uses a modified mechanical joint design to compensate, especially for defects in the rotator cuff, by moving the ball of the joint to the glenoid and the socket to the humeral head. The resulting design combines a medialized center of rotation with the mechanical advantage of a substantially higher translational stiffness (small displacements of the humeral socket along the surface of the joint lead to relatively large displacements away from the joint center [15]) resulting in a clinically more stable joint. This allows effective deltoid muscle activation without the otherwise necessary rotator cuff contribution to create sufficient translational stiffness.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contribution of the Reverse Endoprosthesis to Glenohumeral Kinematics

Bergmann

Leeuw

Janssen

et al. 2008

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…[17]. Weiterhin wird die biomechanische Gesamtsituation (Kräfteverteilung und Kontaktpunkt) durch eine zu groß gewählte Komponente ungünstig beeinflusst [29].…”

Section: Pfannenradiusunclassified

Zementfreier anatomischer Glenoidersatz

Habermeyer

Magosch

2015

Obere Extremität

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Translational stiffness of the replaced shoulder joint

Cited by 34 publications

References 11 publications

Hierarchy of Stability Factors in Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty

Hierarchy of Stability Factors in Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty

Contribution of the Reverse Endoprosthesis to Glenohumeral Kinematics

Zementfreier anatomischer Glenoidersatz

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About