Differences in the Movement of the Glenoid Over the Humeral Head Between Subject‐Specific and Generalized Glenohumeral Motion

Hill-Sachs lesion engagement, which is used for clinical decision-making in shoulder instability, is typically based on a static assessment, but would ideally be dynamically evaluated. The aim of this study was to evaluate differences between subject-specific and generalized glenohumeral motion. For five arm movements (forward elevation, scapula abduction, coronal abduction, external rotation at 90° abduction and external rotation at rest) of 20 participants, the average rotation and translation of the scapula and humerus throughout the forward movement were calculated. Metrics (length, distance, angle, and area) of the glenoid projection on the humerus were compared between the subject-specific and generalized (average of all subjects) motion. The impact of virtually generated glenoid bone loss (GBL) on the glenoid projection area was also investigated. Humeral rotation confidence intervals were narrow for abduction movements. The generalized and subject-specific glenoid projection metrics were similar. The average difference in the length of the glenoid movement over the humeral surface between the subject-specific and generalized motion ranged between 1-3 mm and the glenoid projection area differed between 1% and 7% for the five motions. The average distance between the subject-specific and generalized motion at the start or end position was less than 1 mm apart. GBL resulted in a subtly reduced glenoid projection area. STATEMENT OF CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The similarity between the subject-specific and generalized glenohumeral motion for the five movements included in this study suggests that applying a generalized motion to patient-specific three-dimensional bone models may be an interesting direction for evaluating bipolar bone loss. Level of Evidence: Level II (Control subjects; Development of diagnostic criteria).

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Orthopaedic Research®
Published
2025-09-28
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.70028
Primary Topic
Shoulder Injury and Treatment
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Differences in the Movement of the Glenoid Over the Humeral Head Between Subject‐Specific and Generalized Glenohumeral Motion

Floor M. Lambers, Michael H. Amini, Lena Uhlenberg, Oliver Amft et al.
Journal of Orthopaedic Research®
Shoulder Injury and Treatment
article

Differences in the Movement of the Glenoid Over the Humeral Head Between Subject‐Specific and Generalized Glenohumeral Motion

Floor M. Lambers, Michael H. Amini, Lena Uhlenberg, Oliver Amft, Manuel Schroeder, Linus Hötzel, Markus Scheibel, Jean‐David Werthel, Heiko Gottschling
article en

Abstract

Hill-Sachs lesion engagement, which is used for clinical decision-making in shoulder instability, is typically based on a static assessment, but would ideally be dynamically evaluated. The aim of this study was to evaluate differences between subject-specific and generalized glenohumeral motion. For five arm movements (forward elevation, scapula abduction, coronal abduction, external rotation at 90° abduction and external rotation at rest) of 20 participants, the average rotation and translation of the scapula and humerus throughout the forward movement were calculated. Metrics (length, distance, angle, and area) of the glenoid projection on the humerus were compared between the subject-specific and generalized (average of all subjects) motion. The impact of virtually generated glenoid bone loss (GBL) on the glenoid projection area was also investigated. Humeral rotation confidence intervals were narrow for abduction movements. The generalized and subject-specific glenoid projection metrics were similar. The average difference in the length of the glenoid movement over the humeral surface between the subject-specific and generalized motion ranged between 1-3 mm and the glenoid projection area differed between 1% and 7% for the five motions. The average distance between the subject-specific and generalized motion at the start or end position was less than 1 mm apart. GBL resulted in a subtly reduced glenoid projection area. STATEMENT OF CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The similarity between the subject-specific and generalized glenohumeral motion for the five movements included in this study suggests that applying a generalized motion to patient-specific three-dimensional bone models may be an interesting direction for evaluating bipolar bone loss. Level of Evidence: Level II (Control subjects; Development of diagnostic criteria).

Journal of Orthopaedic Research®Vol. 43(11)
University of Freiburg (DE), Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (DE), The Core Institute (US), Schulthess-Klinik (CH), Hahn-Schickard-Gesellschaft für angewandte Forschung (DE), Hôpital Ambroise-Paré (FR), Stryker (Switzerland) (CH), Stryker (Germany) (DE)
Openalex Percentile: Top 58%
Shoulder Injury and Treatment
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.