Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 22, 2026

Measuring 3D In-vivo Shoulder Kinematics using Biplanar Videoradiography
Published on: March 12, 2021
Differences in glenohumeral translations calculated with three methods: Comparison of relative positions and contact
Keisuke Matsuki1, Tomonori Kenmoku2, Nobuyasu Ochiai3
1Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of Florida, 318 MAE-A, P.O. Box 116250, Gainesville, FL 32611-6250, USA; Shoulder and Elbow Center, Funabashi Orthopaedic Hospital, 1-833 Hazama, Funabashi, Chiba 2740822, Japan.
Abstract:
Several published articles have reported 3-dimensional glenohumeral kinematics using model-image registration techniques. However, different methods to compute the translations were used in these articles. The purpose of this study was to compare glenohumeral translations calculated with three different methods. Fifteen healthy males with a mean age of 31 years (range, 27-36 years old) were enrolled in this study. Fluoroscopic images during scapular plane elevation were recorded at 30 frames per second for the right shoulder in each subject, and CT-derived models of the humerus and the scapula were matched with the silhouette of the bones in the fluoroscopic images using model-image registration techniques. Glenohumeral translations were computed with three methods: relative position of the origins of the humeral and scapular models, contact points of the two models, and relative positions based upon the calculated glenohumeral center of rotation (CoR). In the supero-inferior direction, translations calculated with the three methods were roughly parallel, with the maximum difference of 1.6mm (P<0.001). In the antero-posterior direction, translations with the origins and CoR were parallel; however, translations computed with the origins and contact point describe arcs that differ by almost 2mm at low humeral elevation angles and converge at higher degrees of humeral elevation (P<0.001). Glenohumeral translations calculated using three methods showed statistically significant differences that may be important when comparing detailed results of different studies. However, these relatively small differences are likely subclinical, so that all three methods can reasonably be used for description of glenohumeral translations.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Method of Joints: Problem Solving II
Functional Classification of Joints
The functional classification of joints is determined by the amount of mobility between the adjacent bones. Joints are functionally classified as a synarthrosis or immobile joint, an amphiarthrosis or slightly moveable joint, or as a diarthrosis, a freely moveable joint. Fibrous and cartilaginous joints can be functionally classified as either synarthroses or amphiarthroses, whereas all synovial joints are classified as diarthroses.
Synarthrosis
An...
Space Trusses: Problem Solving
Consider a tripod consisting of a tetrahedral space truss with a ball-and-socket joint at C. Suppose the height and lengths of the horizontal and vertical...
Method of Joints: Problem Solving I
Joints
Structural joint classifications are based on the material that makes up the joint as well as whether or not the joint contains a space between the bones. Joints are structurally classified as fibrous, cartilaginous, or synovial.
Fibrous Joints Are Immovable
The bones of a...
Method of Joints
Since plane truss members are in the same plane, each joint is subjected to a coplanar and concurrent force system. To apply the method of joints, the first step is to...

