Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 2, 2025
Measuring 3D In-vivo Shoulder Kinematics using Biplanar Videoradiography
Published on: March 12, 2021
Overhead arm positioning in the rehabilitation of elbow dislocations: An in vitro biomechanical study
Ranita H K Manocha1, Sara Banayan2, James A Johnson2
1Section of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; McCaig Institute for Bone and Joint Health, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; Roth-McFarlane Hand & Upper Limb Centre, St. Joseph's Health Care, London, Ontario, Canada; Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.
Study Design:
In vitro biomechanical study.
Introduction:
Elbow stiffness is a common complication following elbow dislocation. Overhead exercises have been proposed to initiate early motion to reduce stiffness through employing gravity to stabilize the elbow. The implications of this position with regard to elbow kinematics after dislocation have not been reported.
Purpose Of The Study:
To determine the influence of the overhead position on elbow stability following combined medial and lateral collateral ligament (MCL and LCL) injuries.
Methods:
Passive and simulated active extension were performed on 11 cadaveric elbows with the arm in the overhead, dependent, and horizontal positions and with the forearm in pronation, neutral, and supination. Internal-external rotation (IER) and varus-valgus angulation (VVA) of the ulnohumeral joint were assessed for the intact elbow and after simulated MCL-LCL injury. Repeated-measures analyses of variance were conducted to analyze the effects of elbow state, arm position, forearm rotation, and extension angle.
Results:
During passive extension with the arm overhead, the pronated position resulted in more internal rotation than supination (-2.6 ± 0.7°, P = .03). There was no effect of forearm rotation on VVA. The overhead position increased internal rotation relative to the dependent position when the forearm was neutral (-8.5 ± 2.5°, P = .04) and relative to the horizontal position when the forearm was supinated (-12.7 ± 2.2°, P= .02). During active extension, pronation increased valgus angle compared to the neutral (+1.2 ± 0.3°, P= .04) and supinated (+1.5 ± 0.4°, P= .03) positions, but did not affect IER. There was no difference between active and passive motion with the arm overhead (P > .05).
Discussion:
Movement of the injured elbow in the overhead position most closely replicated kinematics of the intact elbow compared to the other arm positions.
Conclusions:
Overhead elbow extension results in similar kinematics between an intact elbow and an elbow with MCL and LCL tears. As such, therapists might consider early motion in this position to reduce the risk of elbow stiffness after dislocation.
