Logo image
Muscular Forces Responsible for Proximal Humeral Deformity after Fracture
Journal article   Peer reviewed

Muscular Forces Responsible for Proximal Humeral Deformity after Fracture

Christen E. Chalmers, David J. Wright, Nilay Patel, Hunter Hitchens, Michelle McGarry, Thay Q. Lee and John A. Scolaro
Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma, Vol.36(1)
2022

Abstract

Biomechanical Phenomena Humans Humeral Head Range of Motion, Articular Shoulder Shoulder Joint adult aged anatomical location Article cadaver comparative study controlled study deltoid muscle female human human tissue humeral head humeral shaft infraspinatus muscle male muscle strength osteotomy outcome assessment proximal humerus proximal humerus fracture qualitative analysis quantitative analysis rotator cuff rotator cuff repair subscapularis muscle varus deformity biomechanics joint characteristics and functions shoulder
Objectives: To evaluate the contribution of each of the rotator cuff muscles and deltoid to fracture deformity in a 2-part proximal humerus fracture model. Our hypothesis was that superior cuff muscles would have the greatest contribution to coronal plane deformity, whereas muscles with anterior and posterior attachments would have the greatest contribution to axial and sagittal plane deformity. Methods: A medial wedge osteotomy was created in 8 cadaveric shoulder specimens. A custom shoulder testing system was used to load each rotator cuff muscle and deltoid under increasing loading conditions. Fracture displacement was measured using a Microscribe digitizing system. The primary outcome was the contribution of each muscle to varus collapse. Secondary outcomes included contributions of each muscle to apex anterior/posterior deformity and humeral head anteversion/retroversion. Results: Unbalanced loading of the supraspinatus resulted in the greatest varus deformity (34.5 ± 2.3 degrees), followed by the infraspinatus (22.3 ± 3.6 degrees) and subscapularis (21.7 ± 3.1 degree) (P < 0.05). Unbalanced loading of the subscapularis induced the greatest apex posterior (27.5 ± 4.8 degrees, P < 0.05) and retroversion (39.0 ± 5.6 degrees, P < 0.05) deformity, whereas the infraspinatus induced the greatest apex anterior (8.7 ± 3.4 degrees, P > 0.05) and anteversion (17.7 ± 5.7 degrees, P > 0.05) deformity. Conclusions: In this proximal humerus fracture model, the supraspinatus was the primary driver of varus deformity, whereas the subscapularis and infraspinatus contributed to apex posterior/retroversion and apex anterior/anteversion, respectively. The subscapularis and infraspinatus are also important secondary drivers of varus deformity. This study establishes a physiologically relevant fracture model that mimics in vivo conditions for future biomechanical testing. Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

Metrics

8 Record Views

Details

Logo image