Limits...
Scaling and kinematics optimisation of the scapula and thorax in upper limb musculoskeletal models.

Prinold JA, Bull AM - J Biomech (2014)

Bottom Line: These rely on thorax scaling to effectively define the scapula's path but do not consider the area underneath the scapula in scaling, and assume a fixed conoid ligament length.The scapula and clavicle kinematics are optimised with the constraint that the scapula medial border does not penetrate the thorax.This method is simulated in the UK National Shoulder Model and compared to four other methods, including the standard technique, during three pull-up techniques (n=11).

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Bioengineering, Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, UK.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

Average clavicle rotation differences to measured kinematics for (a) front, (b) wide and (c) reverse configuration pull-ups using various scaling and kinematics optimisation strategies (described in Table 1), including the 95% confidence intervals of the kinematics. The average RMS clavicle measurement errors found for the Scapula Tracker in a bone pin validation study (Karduna et al., 2001) are included as a dashed horizontal line. These values are 1.2° and 1.6° for clavicle protraction and upward rotation respectively. ⁎indicates p<0.05, ⁎⁎p<0.01, ⁎⁎⁎p<0.0001. Note all trials were included in the statistical analysis. The abbreviations used for the optimisation methods are described in Table 1. Additional simulations using homogeneous scaling of all segments based on segment length (including the thorax) and the FCC method constraints, found average differences across the three pull-up configurations of: 10.9±3.3° (CT internal) and 9.0±2.8° (CT upward). The same values, with homogeneous scaling of all segments, but without a constrained conoid ligament length were smaller: 6.1±2.2° (CT internal) and 7.9±3.2° (CT upward).
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4150986&req=5

f0015: Average clavicle rotation differences to measured kinematics for (a) front, (b) wide and (c) reverse configuration pull-ups using various scaling and kinematics optimisation strategies (described in Table 1), including the 95% confidence intervals of the kinematics. The average RMS clavicle measurement errors found for the Scapula Tracker in a bone pin validation study (Karduna et al., 2001) are included as a dashed horizontal line. These values are 1.2° and 1.6° for clavicle protraction and upward rotation respectively. ⁎indicates p<0.05, ⁎⁎p<0.01, ⁎⁎⁎p<0.0001. Note all trials were included in the statistical analysis. The abbreviations used for the optimisation methods are described in Table 1. Additional simulations using homogeneous scaling of all segments based on segment length (including the thorax) and the FCC method constraints, found average differences across the three pull-up configurations of: 10.9±3.3° (CT internal) and 9.0±2.8° (CT upward). The same values, with homogeneous scaling of all segments, but without a constrained conoid ligament length were smaller: 6.1±2.2° (CT internal) and 7.9±3.2° (CT upward).


Scaling and kinematics optimisation of the scapula and thorax in upper limb musculoskeletal models.

Prinold JA, Bull AM - J Biomech (2014)

Average clavicle rotation differences to measured kinematics for (a) front, (b) wide and (c) reverse configuration pull-ups using various scaling and kinematics optimisation strategies (described in Table 1), including the 95% confidence intervals of the kinematics. The average RMS clavicle measurement errors found for the Scapula Tracker in a bone pin validation study (Karduna et al., 2001) are included as a dashed horizontal line. These values are 1.2° and 1.6° for clavicle protraction and upward rotation respectively. ⁎indicates p<0.05, ⁎⁎p<0.01, ⁎⁎⁎p<0.0001. Note all trials were included in the statistical analysis. The abbreviations used for the optimisation methods are described in Table 1. Additional simulations using homogeneous scaling of all segments based on segment length (including the thorax) and the FCC method constraints, found average differences across the three pull-up configurations of: 10.9±3.3° (CT internal) and 9.0±2.8° (CT upward). The same values, with homogeneous scaling of all segments, but without a constrained conoid ligament length were smaller: 6.1±2.2° (CT internal) and 7.9±3.2° (CT upward).
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4150986&req=5

f0015: Average clavicle rotation differences to measured kinematics for (a) front, (b) wide and (c) reverse configuration pull-ups using various scaling and kinematics optimisation strategies (described in Table 1), including the 95% confidence intervals of the kinematics. The average RMS clavicle measurement errors found for the Scapula Tracker in a bone pin validation study (Karduna et al., 2001) are included as a dashed horizontal line. These values are 1.2° and 1.6° for clavicle protraction and upward rotation respectively. ⁎indicates p<0.05, ⁎⁎p<0.01, ⁎⁎⁎p<0.0001. Note all trials were included in the statistical analysis. The abbreviations used for the optimisation methods are described in Table 1. Additional simulations using homogeneous scaling of all segments based on segment length (including the thorax) and the FCC method constraints, found average differences across the three pull-up configurations of: 10.9±3.3° (CT internal) and 9.0±2.8° (CT upward). The same values, with homogeneous scaling of all segments, but without a constrained conoid ligament length were smaller: 6.1±2.2° (CT internal) and 7.9±3.2° (CT upward).
Bottom Line: These rely on thorax scaling to effectively define the scapula's path but do not consider the area underneath the scapula in scaling, and assume a fixed conoid ligament length.The scapula and clavicle kinematics are optimised with the constraint that the scapula medial border does not penetrate the thorax.This method is simulated in the UK National Shoulder Model and compared to four other methods, including the standard technique, during three pull-up techniques (n=11).

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Bioengineering, Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, UK.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus