Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 29, 2025
Measuring 3D In-vivo Shoulder Kinematics using Biplanar Videoradiography
Published on: March 12, 2021
Preoperative Planning for Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty: Does the Clinical Range of Motion Match the Planned 3D
Diane Ji Yun Yoon1,2, Guillaume-Anthony Odri2,3, Luc Favard1
1Service de Chirurgie Orthopédique et Traumatologique, CHRU Trousseau, Faculté de Médecine de Tours, Université de Tours, 1C Avenue de la République, 37170 Chambray-les-Tours, France.
Introduction:
The functional outcome after reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is closely linked to how much the humerus shifts because of the implants. While two-dimensional (2D) angle measurements have been used to capture this shift, it can be measured in three dimensions (3D) as the arm change position (ACP). In a previous study, the ACP was measured using 3D preoperative planning software with the passive virtual shoulder range of motion obtained after RSA. The main objective of this study was to evaluate the relationship between the ACP and the actual active shoulder range of motion measured after RSA. The hypothesis was that the ACP and the active clinical range of motion are related such that the ACP is a reliable parameter to guide the preoperative planning of an RSA. The secondary objective was to assess the relationship between 2D and 3D humeral displacement measurements.
Materials And Methods:
This prospective observational study enrolled 12 patients who underwent RSA and had a minimum follow-up of 2 years. The active range of motion in shoulder flexion, abduction, and internal and external rotation was measured. At the same time, ACP measurements were taken from a reconstructed postoperative CT scan, in addition to the radiographic measurements of humeral lateralization and distalization angles on AP views in neutral rotation.
Results:
The mean humeral distalization induced by RSA was 33.3 mm (±3.8 mm). A non-statistically significant increase in shoulder flexion was observed for humeral distalization beyond 38 mm (R2 = 0.29, p = 0.07). This "threshold" effect of humeral distalization was also observed for the gains in abduction, as well as internal and external rotations, which seemed better with less than 38 mm or even 35 mm distalization. No statistical correlation was found between the 3D ACP measurements and 2D angle measurements.
Conclusion:
Excessive humeral distalization seems to be detrimental to joint mobility, especially shoulder flexion. Humeral lateralization and humeral anteriorization measured using the ACP seem to promote better shoulder range of motion, with no threshold effect. These findings could be evidence of tension in the soft tissues around the shoulder joint, which should be taken into consideration during preoperative planning.
