Ernstbrunner, Lukas

Purpose To investigate the gliding resistance dynamics between the supraspinatus (SSP) tendon and the coracoacromial arch, both before and after subacromial decompression (anterolateral acromioplasty) and acromion resection (acromionectomy). Methods Using 4 fresh‐frozen cadaveric shoulders, acromion shapes were classified (2 type I and 2 type III according to Bigliani). Subacromial bursa and coracoacromial ligament maintenance replicated physiologic sliding conditions. Gliding resistance was measured during glenohumeral abduction (0° to 60°) in internal rotation (IR) and external rotation (ER). Peak gliding resistance between the SSP tendon and the coracoacromial arch was determined and compared between intact, anterolateral acromioplasty, and acromionectomy. Results Peak SSP gliding resistance during abduction in an intact shoulder was significantly higher in IR than in ER (4.1 vs 2.1 N, P < .001). The mean peak SSP gliding resistance during 0° to 60° glenohumeral abduction in IR in the intact condition was significantly higher compared with the subacromial decompression condition (4.1 vs 2.8 N, P = .021) and with the acromionectomy condition (4.1 vs 0.9 N, P < .001). During 0° to 60° glenohumeral abduction in ER, mean peak SSP gliding resistance in the intact condition was not significantly different compared with the subacromial decompression condition (2.1 vs 2.0 N, P = .999). The 2 specimens with a hooked (i.e. type III) acromion showed significantly higher mean peak SSP gliding resistance during glenohumeral abduction in IR and ER when compared with the 2 specimens with a flat (i.e. type I) acromion (IR: 5.8 vs 3.0 N, P = .006; ER: 2.8 vs 1.4 N, P = .001). Conclusions In this cadaveric study, peak gliding resistance between the SSP tendon and the coracoacromial arch during combined abduction and IR was significantly reduced after anterolateral acromioplasty and was significantly higher in specimens with a hooked acromion. Clinical Relevance The clinical benefit of subacromial decompression remains unclear. This study suggests that anterolateral acromioplasty might reduce supraspinatus gliding resistance in those with a hooked acromion and in the typical “impingement” position.

ObjectivesThe bony shoulder stability ratio (BSSR) allows for quantification of the bony stabilisers in vivo. We aimed to biomechanically validate the BSSR, determine whether joint incongruence affects the stability ratio (SR) of a shoulder model, and determine the correct parameters (glenoid concavity versus humeral head radius) for calculation of the BSSR in vivo.MethodsFour polyethylene balls (radii: 19.1 mm to 38.1 mm) were used to mould four fitting sockets in four different depths (3.2 mm to 19.1mm). The SR was measured in biomechanical congruent and incongruent experimental series. The experimental SR of a congruent system was compared with the calculated SR based on the BSSR approach. Differences in SR between congruent and incongruent experimental conditions were quantified. Finally, the experimental SR was compared with either calculated SR based on the socket concavity or plastic ball radius.ResultsThe experimental SR is comparable with the calculated SR (mean difference 10%, sd 8%; relative values). The experimental incongruence study observed almost no differences (2%, sd 2%). The calculated SR on the basis of the socket concavity radius is superior in predicting the experimental SR (mean difference 10%, sd 9%) compared with the calculated SR based on the plastic ball radius (mean difference 42%, sd 55%).ConclusionThe present biomechanical investigation confirmed the validity of the BSSR. Incongruence has no significant effect on the SR of a shoulder model. In the event of an incongruent system, the calculation of the BSSR on the basis of the glenoid concavity radius is recommended. Cite this article: L. Ernstbrunner, J-D. Werthel, T. Hatta, A. R. Thoreson, H. Resch, K-N. An, P. Moroder. Biomechanical analysis of the effect of congruence, depth and radius on the stability ratio of a simplistic ‘ball-and-socket’ joint model. Bone Joint Res 2016;5:453–460. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.510.BJR-2016-0078.R1.