↓ Skip to main content

Shoulder Bone Geometry Affects the Active and Passive Axial Rotational Range of the Glenohumeral Joint

Overview of attention for article published in The American Journal of Sports Medicine, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Shoulder Bone Geometry Affects the Active and Passive Axial Rotational Range of the Glenohumeral Joint
Published in
The American Journal of Sports Medicine, August 2017
DOI 10.1177/0363546517716926
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The range of motion of the glenohumeral joint varies substantially among individuals and is dependent on humeral position. How variation in shape of the humerus and scapula affects shoulder axial range of motion at various positions has not been established. To quantify variation in the shape of the glenohumeral joint and investigate whether the scapula and humerus geometries affect the axial rotational range of the glenohumeral joint. Descriptive laboratory study. The range of active and passive internal-external rotation of the glenohumeral joint was quantified for 10 asymptomatic participants with optical motion tracking at 60º, 90º, and 120º humeral elevations in the coronal, scapular, and sagittal planes. Bone geometrical parameters were acquired from shoulder magnetic resonance image scans, and correlations between geometrical parameters and maximum internal and external rotations were investigated. Three-dimensional participant-specific models of the humerus and scapula were used to identify collisions between bones at the end of range. Maximum internal and external rotations of the glenohumeral joint were correlated to geometric parameters and were limited by bony collisions. Generally, the active axial rotational range was greater with increased articular cartilage and glenoid curvature, while a shorter acromion resulted in greater passive range. Greater internal rotation was correlated with a greater glenoid depth and curvature in the scapular plane ( r = 0.76, P < .01, at 60° of elevation), a greater subacromial depth in the coronal plane ( r = 0.74, P < .01, at 90° of elevation), and a greater articular cartilage curvature in the sagittal plane ( r = 0.75, P < .01, at 90° of elevation). At higher humeral elevations, a greater subacromial depth and shorter acromion allowed a greater range of motion. The study strongly suggests that specific bony constraints restrict the maximum internal and external rotations achieved in active and passive glenohumeral movement. This study identifies bony constraints that limit the range of motion of the glenohumeral joint. This information can be used to predict full range of motion and set patient-specific rehabilitation targets for those recovering from shoulder disorders. It can improve positioning and choice of shoulder implants during preoperative planning by considering points of collision that could limit range of motion.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 18%
Other 6 15%
Student > Master 5 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Researcher 3 8%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 12 30%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 15%
Engineering 6 15%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 17 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 November 2017.
All research outputs
#9,208,376
of 29,473,327 outputs
Outputs from The American Journal of Sports Medicine
#3,296
of 6,383 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#117,591
of 336,847 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The American Journal of Sports Medicine
#55
of 77 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 29,473,327 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,383 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.4. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 336,847 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 77 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.