This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Letters to the Editor: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Letters to the Editor are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Harryman, D. T.
Right arrow Articles by Matsen, F. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Harryman, D. T.
Right arrow Articles by Matsen, F. A.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Vol 77, Issue 4 555-563, Copyright © 1995 by Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc


JOURNAL CONTENTS

The effect of articular conformity and the size of the humeral head component on laxity and motion after glenohumeral arthroplasty. A study in cadavera

DT Harryman, JA Sidles, SL Harris, SB Lippitt and FA Matsen
Department of Orthopaedics, School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle 98195, USA.

We used a cadaveric model to examine the mechanical effects of changes in the conformity of the articular surfaces and the size of the humeral head component in glenohumeral arthroplasty. The experimental system permitted a manual clinical examination of the glenohumeral joint while sensors monitored the humeroscapular position and orientation as well as the forces and torques applied by the examiner. Four preparations were compared: an anatomical humeroscapular preparation and three glenohumeral arthroplasty preparations (one with anatomically sized components and a radius of curvature of the glenoid that was four millimeters larger than that of the humeral head, one with anatomically sized components and a radius of curvature of the glenoid that was equal to that of the humeral head, and one with a non-anatomical, large humeral head component and a radius of curvature of the glenoid that was equal to that of the humeral head). All motions, including flexion, external and internal rotation, and maximum elevation, were diminished with use of the non-anatomical, large humeral head component. Laxity of the joint on drawer and sulcus tests was not affected by the conformity of the articular surfaces but was decreased significantly by implantation of the large humeral head component. The kinematics of the glenohumeral joint were not markedly altered by reduction of the uniformity between the articular surfaces of the prosthetic components. In all preparations, obligate displacement of the humeral head associated with a passive range of motion occurred at smaller angles with the large humeral head component.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
JBJSHome page
F. A. Matsen III, J. Clinton, J. Lynch, A. Bertelsen, and M. L. Richardson
Glenoid Component Failure in Total Shoulder Arthroplasty
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., April 1, 2008; 90(4): 885 - 896.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J Bone Joint Surg BrHome page
P. Boileau, R. J. Sinnerton, C. Chuinard, and G. Walch
Arthroplasty of the shoulder
J Bone Joint Surg Br, May 1, 2006; 88-B(5): 562 - 575.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JBJSHome page
S. Kamineni, S.W. O'Driscoll, M. Urban, A. Garg, L.J. Berglund, B.F. Morrey, and K.N. An
Intrinsic Constraint of Unlinked Total Elbow Replacements--The Ulnotrochlear Joint
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., September 1, 2005; 87(9): 2019 - 2027.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J Bone Joint Surg BrHome page
J. Mileti, J. W. Sperling, R. H. Cofield, J. R. Harrington, and T. L. Hoskin
Monoblock and modular total shoulder arthroplasty for osteoarthritis
J Bone Joint Surg Br, April 1, 2005; 87-B(4): 496 - 500.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JBJSHome page
G. Walch, T. B. Edwards, A. Boulahia, P. Boileau, D. Mole, and P. Adeleine
The Influence of Glenohumeral Prosthetic Mismatch on Glenoid Radiolucent Lines: Results of a Multicenter Study
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., December 9, 2002; 84(12): 2186 - 2191.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JBJSHome page
D. D. Robertson, J. Yuan, L. U. Bigliani, E. L. Flatow, and K. Yamaguchi
Three-Dimensional Analysis of the Proximal Part of the Humerus: Relevance to Arthroplasty
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., November 1, 2000; 82(11): 1594 - 1594.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


Home page
JBJSHome page
M. L. PEARL and S. KURUTZ
Geometric Analysis of Commonly Used Prosthetic Systems for Proximal Humeral Replacement
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., May 1, 1999; 81(5): 660 - 71.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


Home page
JBJSHome page
A. R. KARDUNA, G. R. WILLIAMS, J. L. WILLIAMS, and J. P. IANNOTTI
Glenohumeral Joint Translations before and after Total Shoulder Arthroplasty. A Study in Cadavera
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., August 1, 1997; 79(8): 1166 - 74.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


Home page
JBJSHome page
M. A. WIRTH and C. A. ROCKWOOD JR.
Current Concepts Review - Complications of Total Shoulder-Replacement Arthroplasty
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., April 1, 1996; 78(4): 603 - 16.
[Full Text]