Abstract
Background:
It is not well known how different external loads influence shoulder kinematics and muscle activity in patients with shoulder prostheses. Study objective: define shoulder kinematics and determine the scapulothoracic contribution to total shoulder motion, in combination with shoulder muscle activity and the degree of co-contraction, of patients with total (TSA) and reverse shoulder arthroplasties (RSA) and healthy individuals during rehabilitation exercises using different loading conditions.
Methods:
Shoulder motions (anteflexion and elevation in the scapular plane) of 17 patients (20 shoulders) with a TSA, 8 patients (9 shoulders) with a RSA and 15 healthy subjects were measured using anelectromagnetic tracking device. A force transducer recorded force signals during loaded conditions (without external load, 1 kg and elastic resistance). Electromyographic (EMG) activity of the deltoid (anterior, middle, posterior parts), latissimus dorsi, pectoralis major (clavicular and sternal parts), teres major and serratus anterior was recorded and the degree of co-contraction calculated.
Results:
The scapula contributed more to movement of the arm in subjects with prostheses compared to healthy subjects and during loaded versus unloaded tasks. Glenohumeral elevation angles during anteflexion were significantly higher in the TSA than in the RSA group. Higher activity of the middle and posterior deltoid was found in the TSA group compared to healthy subjects and for the pectoralis major (sternal part) in the RSA group compared to TSA and healthy subjects. For all muscles, except the serratus anterior, activity was lower for unloaded tasks compared to 1 kg dumbbell and elastic band resistance. No main effect of group or load for degree of co-contraction was detected in both exercises.
Conclusions:
Differences in contribution of the scapula to total shoulder motion between patients with different types of arthroplasties were not significant, but differed both compared to healthy subjects. Scapular kinematics of patients with shoulder arthroplasties were influenced by implementation of external loads, however, not by the type of load. There were no differences in muscle activity and degree of co-contraction between patient groups.
