Does hip joint positioning affect maximal voluntary contraction in the gluteus maximus, gluteus medius, tensor fasciae latae and sartorius muscles?

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty (THA) is presumed to provide functional and clinical benefits, whereas in fact the literature reveals that gait and posturographic parameters following THA do not recover values found in the general population. There is a significant disturbance of postural sway in THA patients, regardless of the surgical approach, although with some differences between approaches compared to controls: the anterior and anterolateral minimally invasive approaches seem to be more disruptive of postural parameters than the posterior approach. Electromyographic (EMG) study of the hip muscles involved in surgery [gluteus maximus (GMax), gluteus medius (GMed), tensor fasciae latae (TFL), and sartorius (S)] could shed light, the relevant literature involves discordant methodologies. We developed a methodology to assess EMG activity during maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) of the GMax, GMed, TFL and sartorius muscles as a reference for normalization. A prospective study aimed to assess whether hip joint positioning and the learning curve on an MVC test affect the EMG signal during a maximal voluntary contraction. HYPOTHESIS: Hip positioning and the learning curve on an MVC test affect EMG signal during MVC of GMax, GMed, TFL and S. METHODS: Thirty young asymptomatic subjects participated in the study. Each performed 8 hip muscle MVCs in various joint positions recorded with surface EMG sensors. Each MVC was performed 3 times in 1 week, with the same schedule every day, controlling for activity levels in the preceding 24h. EMG activity during MVC was expressed as a ratio of EMG activity during unipedal stance. Non-parametric tests were applied. RESULTS: Statistical analysis showed no difference according to hip position for abductors or flexors in assessing EMG signal during MVC over the 3 sessions. Hip abductors showed no difference between abduction in lateral decubitus with hip straight versus hip flexed: GMax (19.8±13.7 vs. 14.5±7.8, P=0.78), GMed (13.4±9.0 vs. 9.9±6.6, P=0.21) and TFL (69.5±61.7 vs. 65.9±51.3, P=0.50). Flexors showed no difference between hip flexion/abduction/lateral rotation performed in supine or sitting position: TFL (70.6±45.9 vs. 61.6±45.8, P=0.22) and S (101.1±67.9 vs. 72.6±44.6, P=0.21). The most effective tests to assess EMG signal during MVC were for the hip abductors: hip abduction performed in lateral decubitus (36.7% for GMax, 76.7% for GMed), and for hip flexors: hip flexion/abduction/lateral rotation performed in supine decubitus (50% for TFL, 76.7% for S). DISCUSSION: The study hypothesis was not confirmed, since hip joint positioning and the learning curve on an MVC test did not affect EMG signal during MVC of GMax, GMed, TFL and S muscles. Therefore, a single session and one specific test is enough to assess MVC in hip abductors (abduction in lateral decubitus) and flexors (hip flexion/abduction/lateral rotation in supine position). This method could be applied to assess muscle function after THA, and particularly to compare different approaches. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, case-matched study.

Short-term comparison of postural effects of three minimally invasive hip approaches in primary total hip arthroplasty: Direct anterior, posterolateral and Röttinger.

INTRODUCTION: There is renewed interest in total hip arthroplasty (THA) with the development of minimally invasive approaches. The anterior and Röttinger approaches are attractive for their anatomical and minimally invasive character, but with no comparative studies in the literature definitely suggesting superiority in terms of quality of functional recovery. We therefore performed a case-control study, assessing: 1) whether the postural parameters of patients operated on with the anterior, Röttinger and posterior minimally invasive approaches were similar to those of asymptomatic subjects, and 2) whether there were any differences in postural parameters between the three approaches at short-term follow-up. HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesized that the anterior and Röttinger approaches are less disruptive of postural parameters than the posterior approach. METHODS: Seventy subjects (44 primary THA patients and 26 asymptomatic control subjects) were enrolled. Operated subjects were divided into 3 experimental groups corresponding to the 3 minimally invasive approaches: posterior (n=14), anterior (n=15) and Röttinger (n=15). Two single-leg stance tests (left followed by right leg stance; 10s per test) were carried out on a stabilometric platform, within 2months after surgery for all THA patients, and for controls. Six significant parameters were selected for statistical analysis: test performance, mediolateral and anteroposterior displacements of the center of pressure (CP), path length, average CP displacement speed, and the ellipse containing 95% of CP projections. Non-parametric statistical tests were used to compare groups. RESULTS: There was no difference between the 3 study groups and the control group according to age, gender, BMI, or side (or between study groups regarding WOMAC score). No significant differences between approaches were found for success on postural tests (P=0.14). Subjects operated on with the anterior or Röttinger approach showed significant differences from asymptomatic subjects for 2 postural parameters: path length (Röttinger P=0.04, anterior P=0.03) and average CP displacement speed (Röttinger P=0.04, anterior P=0.03). Subjects operated on through the posterior approach showed no significant differences from asymptomatic subjects. DISCUSSION: The study hypothesis, that the anterior and Röttinger approaches for hip arthroplasty are less disruptive of postural parameters than the posterior approach, was not confirmed. The anterior and Röttinger approach groups showed higher average CP displacement speed and path length, suggesting that they use up more energy resources to maintain static balance. The posterior approach had the least impact on postural parameters in the first 2 postoperative months. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, case-control study.

Conversion of total shoulder arthroplasty to reverse shoulder arthroplasty made possible by custom humeral adapter.

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is increasingly being used to revise anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty cases. This procedure's high complication rate has been reduced by the availability of modular shoulder systems, which allows the humeral component to be preserved during the conversion. This case report describes the revision of an anatomical shoulder implant inserted in 1998. Polyethylene wear and the resulting metal-on-metal contact had caused metallosis. Since the existing humeral implant was not compatible with standard conversion products, the manufacturer provided a custom humeral adapter that allowed the humeral stem to be preserved. This approach greatly simplified the surgical procedure and resulted in good anatomical and clinical outcomes after 9 months of follow-up.

Role of deltoid and passives elements in stabilization during abduction motion (0 degrees-40 degrees): an ex vivo study.

The deltoid and the passive elements of the glenohumeral joint play a role during abduction of the upper limb. However, there is a lack of quantification of their respective role. The aim of the present study was to describe the influence of the deltoid and the passive elements during kinematics experiments in abduction (0 degrees-40 degrees) of unconstrained humerus. Six fresh-frozen anatomical specimens were considered. Bi-planar X-rays were obtained using the EOS imaging system (Biospace Med, Paris, France). Then a horizontal traction at constant speed was applied to the "acromion and clavicle block", using an universal testing machine and specific device, and the humerus kinematics was recorded using an optoelectronic system (Polaris, NDI, Canada). For each anatomical specimen the protocol included two types of tests: intact capsule and perforated capsule. For a displacement of 28 mm of the acromio-clavicular set, the amplitudes of "abduction" rotation vary between 26 degrees and 41 degrees for the "intact capsule" configuration and between 27 degrees and 40.5 degrees for injured capsule configuration. For the same displacement the translation according to Y of the humeral head changes between 1 and 5.5 mm for intact capsule configuration and between -0.5 and 5.5 mm for injured capsule configuration. During the abduction (0 degrees-40 degrees) motion this study suggests that the humeral head is stabilized by the deltoid, the labrum, tendons of the rotators cuff and to a lesser level by the glenoid.

3D kinematics of the glenohumeral joint during abduction motion: an ex vivo study.

The clinical tolerance of rotator cuff tears is extremely variable, so the question is, what is the role of the deltoid in the shoulder stability? First of all, ex vivo experiments are necessary to analyse its effect. The aims of this study were: (1) to propose a testing protocol to measure the glenohumeral joint kinematics during the abduction motion by pulling on the deltoid without constraining the humerus and (2) to evaluate the repeatability of the 3D measurements. Six fresh-frozen anatomic specimens were tested. The kinematics follow-up of the osseous parts was carried out using an optoelectronic system (Polaris((R)), NDI, Canada). The abduction motion is realized by the pulling on anterior and medium fibers of the deltoid. For a 25 mm displacement, the range of motion: for the abduction was 24 degrees to 30.5 degrees , for the flexion was 1.5 degrees to -30.5 degrees (extension), for the medio-lateral rotation was 12 degrees (lateral rotation) to -5 degrees (medial rotation). For a displacement of the whole acromion-clavicle between 0 and 25 mm, the three humeral head translations were less than 5 mm. The three rotations and three translations were (with SD 95%): abduction: 0.5 degrees , flexion: 1 degrees , medio-lateral rotation: 1.5 degrees , three translations: 0.5 mm. The results showed a very high repeatability of the values. Results suggest that the deltoid alone can realize a motion of lateral elevation with a good stability in the glenohumeral joint as shown by the slight translation motion of the head and the value reproducibility. The protocol can be used to validate a finite element model of the glenohumeral joint.

Biomechanics of the deltoideus.

The objective of this study was to determine the direction of the migration engendered by the middle deltoideus on the upper end of the humerus. Eleven patients suffering from shoulder pathology underwent an MRI examination (3 mm thick slices). From these MRI slices, 3D reconstructions were obtained for each patient by using a manual data capture system (SliceOmatic((R))). From this geometry, a mechanical model of the deltoideus was produced, taking into account the contacts between the latter and the following anatomical parts: supraspinatus, infraspinatus and humeral head. For the 11 shoulders, we have obtained a deltoideus showing a global resultant oriented upwards. There was, however, a component oriented downwards (at the level of the humeral head), its intensity being 40-80% less than the component oriented upwards (at the level of the deltoideus V). It is important to note that this study is valid only in the initial degrees of lateral elevation. The deltoideus is an elevator muscle of the humeral head in the glenoid, presenting nevertheless a component oriented downwards. The deltoideus would, therefore, intervene to recenter the shoulder during an abduction movement.