背景:这项研究验证了肩峰标记聚类(AMC)和肩胛骨脊柱标记聚类(SSMC)方法与直立四维计算机断层扫描(4DCT)分析相比的准确性。
方法:8名健康男性的16个肩膀接受了AMC和SSMC评估。使用直立4DCT和光学运动捕获系统跟踪主动肩部抬高。将从AMC和SSMC计算的肩胸和肩肱旋转角度与4DCT进行比较。此外,评估了这些标记物簇在肩抬高的皮肤上的运动。
结果:在10°-140°肱胸抬高时,AMC和4DCT的平均差异为-2.2°±7.5°,内部旋转14.0°±7.4°,后倾6.5°±7.5°,肱骨抬高3.7°±8.1°,-外旋转8.3°±10.7°,高程前平面-8.6°±8.9°。AMC与4DCT在肩胸向上旋转肱胸抬高120°时差异有统计学意义,内部旋转50°,向后倾斜90°,肱骨抬高120°,外旋100°,在前高程平面为100°。然而,SSMC和4DCT在肩胸向上旋转方面的平均差异为-7.5±7.7°,内旋2.0°±7.0°,后倾2.3°±7.2°,肱骨抬高8.8°±7.9°,外旋2.0°±9.1°,高程前平面为1.9°±10.1°。SSMC和4DCT在肩胸向上旋转的肱骨胸段抬高50°和肱骨抬高60°时差异有统计学意义。在其他旋转中没有观察到显著差异。AMC(28.7±4.0mm)的皮肤运动明显小于SSMC(38.6±5.8mm)。尽管AMC的皮肤运动较小,SSMC在肩胸内旋方面表现出更小的差异,向后倾斜,肱骨外旋,与4DCT相比,前高程平面。
结论:这项研究表明,AMC更准确地评估肩胸向上旋转和肱骨抬高,而SSMC更适合评估肩胸内旋,向后倾斜,肱骨外旋,和前高程平面,与4DCT相比差异较小。
BACKGROUND: This
study validated the accuracy of the acromion marker cluster (AMC) and scapula spinal marker cluster (SSMC) methods compared with upright four-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT) analysis.
METHODS: Sixteen shoulders of eight healthy males underwent AMC and SSMC assessments. Active shoulder elevation was tracked using upright 4DCT and optical motion capture system. The scapulothoracic and glenohumeral rotation angles calculated from AMC and SSMC were compared with 4DCT. Additionally, the motion of these marker clusters on the skin with shoulder elevation was evaluated.
RESULTS: The average differences between AMC and 4DCT during 10°-140° of humerothoracic elevation were - 2.2° ± 7.5° in scapulothoracic upward rotation, 14.0° ± 7.4° in internal rotation, 6.5° ± 7.5° in posterior tilting, 3.7° ± 8.1° in glenohumeral elevation, - 8.3° ± 10.7° in external rotation, and - 8.6° ± 8.9° in anterior plane of elevation. The difference between AMC and 4DCT was significant at 120° of humerothoracic elevation in scapulothoracic upward rotation, 50° in internal rotation, 90° in posterior tilting, 120° in glenohumeral elevation, 100° in external rotation, and 100° in anterior plane of elevation. However, the average differences between SSMC and 4DCT were - 7.5 ± 7.7° in scapulothoracic upward rotation, 2.0° ± 7.0° in internal rotation, 2.3° ± 7.2° in posterior tilting, 8.8° ± 7.9° in glenohumeral elevation, 2.0° ± 9.1° in external rotation, and 1.9° ± 10.1° in anterior plane of elevation. The difference between SSMC and 4DCT was significant at 50° of humerothoracic elevation in scapulothoracic upward rotation and 60° in glenohumeral elevation, with no significant differences observed in other rotations. Skin motion was significantly smaller in AMC (28.7 ± 4.0 mm) than SSMC (38.6 ± 5.8 mm). Although there was smaller skin motion in AMC, SSMC exhibited smaller differences in scapulothoracic internal rotation, posterior tilting, glenohumeral external rotation, and anterior plane of elevation compared to 4DCT.
CONCLUSIONS: This
study demonstrates that AMC is more accurate for assessing scapulothoracic upward rotation and glenohumeral elevation, while SSMC is preferable for evaluating scapulothoracic internal rotation, posterior tilting, glenohumeral external rotation, and anterior plane of elevation, with smaller differences compared to 4DCT.