Show simple item record

Instrumented measurement of glenohumeral joint laxity: reliability and normative data

dc.contributor.authorStanley, Richard D.en_US
dc.contributor.authorHerling, Derald E.en_US
dc.contributor.authorSauers, Eric L.en_US
dc.contributor.authorBorsa, Paul A.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2006-09-08T19:46:12Z
dc.date.available2006-09-08T19:46:12Z
dc.date.issued2001-01en_US
dc.identifier.citationSauers, Eric L.; Borsa, Paul A.; Herling, Derald E.; Stanley, Richard D.; (2001). "Instrumented measurement of glenohumeral joint laxity: reliability and normative data." Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 9(1): 34-41. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/41911>en_US
dc.identifier.issn0942-2056en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/41911
dc.identifier.urihttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=11269582&dopt=citationen_US
dc.description.abstractThis study assessed shoulder laxity using an instrumented arthrometer. We compared anterior and posterior translations at various force levels to determine the reliability of our measurement technique and to provide normative data in healthy shoulders. Fifty shoulders were assessed for glenohumeral joint laxity in two directions (anterior and posterior) and at four force levels (67, 89, 111, and 134 N). The dependent measure was joint displacement. Laxity values were widely, yet normally, distributed in our group of healthy shoulders. Intraclass correlation coefficients revealed excellent between-trial reliability (0.92) and fair between-session (0.73) and between-examiner (0.74) reliability. The average standard error of measurement between trials (0.56 mm), sessions (1.5 mm), and examiners (1.7 mm) demonstrated an unprecedentedly high degree of precision for quantifying glenohumeral joint laxity. Paired t tests revealed no significant laxity differences between sides ( P >0.05), indicating bilateral symmetry. A 2 (direction) × 4 (force) analysis of variance revealed significant differences in laxity between directions ( P <0.0001) and force levels ( P <0.0001). Our results show that our instrumented technique for quantifying glenohumeral joint laxity is precise and reproducible. Posterior translation was significantly greater than anterior, and a significant increase in translation was observed between increasing levels of force.en_US
dc.format.extent92720 bytes
dc.format.extent3115 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.format.mimetypetext/plain
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.publisherSpringer-Verlagen_US
dc.subject.otherLegacyen_US
dc.subject.otherAssessment Translation Arthrometer Reproducibility Force Displacementen_US
dc.titleInstrumented measurement of glenohumeral joint laxity: reliability and normative dataen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelPhysical Medicine and Rehabilitationen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumShoulder Kinematics Laboratory, Division of Kinesiology, 401 Washtenaw Ave., 3060A CCRB, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2214, USA,en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherBiomechanics Research Laboratory, Departments of Mechanical Engineering and Exercise and Sport Science, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA,en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherSports Health Care Department, Arizona School of Health Sciences, Phoenix, AZ 85017, USA,en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherMid-Valley Orthopaedics, Albany, OR 97321, USA,en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumcampusAnn Arboren_US
dc.identifier.pmid11269582en_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/41911/1/167-9-1-34_s001670000174.pdfen_US
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s001670000174en_US
dc.identifier.sourceKnee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopyen_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.