header advert
Results 1 - 2 of 2
Results per page:
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 101-B, Issue 10 | Pages 1307 - 1312
1 Oct 2019
Jacxsens M Schmid J Zdravkovic V Jost B Spross C

Aims

In order to determine whether and for whom serial radiological evaluation is necessary in one-part proximal humerus fractures, we set out to describe the clinical history and predictors of secondary displacement in patients sustaining these injuries.

Patients and Methods

Between January 2014 and April 2016, all patients with an isolated, nonoperatively treated one-part proximal humerus fracture were prospectively followed up. Clinical and radiological evaluation took place at less than two, six, 12, and 52 weeks. Fracture configuration, bone quality, and comminution were determined on the initial radiographs. Fracture healing, secondary displacement, and treatment changes were recorded during follow-up.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 95-B, Issue SUPP_34 | Pages 29 - 29
1 Dec 2013
Charbonnier C Christofilopoulos P Chague S Schmid J Bartolone P Hoffmeyer P
Full Access

Introduction

Today, there is no clear consensus as to the amplitude of movement of the “normal hip”. Knowing the necessary joint mobility for everyday life is important to understand different pathologies and to better plan their treatments. Moreover, determining the hip range of motion (ROM) is one of the key points of its clinical examination. Unfortunately this process may lack precision because of movement of other joints around the pelvis. Our goal was to perform a preliminary study based on the coupling of MRI and optical motion capture to define precisely the necessary hip joint mobility for everyday tasks and to assess the accuracy of the hip ROM clinical exam.

Methods

MRI was carried out on 4 healthy volunteers (mean age, 28 years). A morphological analysis was performed to assess any bony abnormalities. Two motion capture sessions were conducted: one aimed at recording routine activities (stand-to-sit, lie down, lace the shoes while seated, pick an object on the floor while seated or standing) known to be painful or prone to implant failures. During the second session, a hip clinical exam was performed successively by 2 orthopedists (2 and 12 years' experience), while the motion of the subjects was simultaneously recorded (Fig.1). These sequences were captured: 1) supine: maximal flexion, maximal IR/ER with hip flexed 90°, maximal abduction; 2) seated: maximal IR/ER with hip and knee flexed 90°. A hand held goniometer was used by clinicians to measure hip angles in those different positions.

Hip joint kinematics was computed from the markers trajectories using a validated optimized fitting algorithm which accounted for skin motion artifacts (accuracy: translational error≍0.5 mm, rotational error <3°). The resulting computed motions were applied to patient-specific hip joint 3D models reconstructed from their MRI data (Fig. 2). Hip angles were determined at each point of the motion thanks to two bone coordinate systems (pelvis and femur). The orthopedist's results were compared.