The Utilization of Static and Dynamic Models for the Biomechanical Testing of Rotator Cuff Pathology: A Systematic Review.

IF 2.5 4区医学 Q2 SPORT SCIENCES

Sports Medicine and Arthroscopy Review Pub Date : 2025-06-01 Epub Date: 2025-04-23 DOI:10.1097/JSA.0000000000000433

Daniel P Berthold, Brian T Ford, Matthew Shuman, Lukas N Muench, Benjamin C Hawthorne, Elifho Obopilwe, Augustus D Mazzocca, Thay Q Lee, Bassem T Elhassan, Ian J Wellington

{"title":"The Utilization of Static and Dynamic Models for the Biomechanical Testing of Rotator Cuff Pathology: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Daniel P Berthold, Brian T Ford, Matthew Shuman, Lukas N Muench, Benjamin C Hawthorne, Elifho Obopilwe, Augustus D Mazzocca, Thay Q Lee, Bassem T Elhassan, Ian J Wellington","doi":"10.1097/JSA.0000000000000433","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: The goal of this systematic review is to determine the prevalence of these testing systems in the current rotator cuff literature, determine the most common outcome measurements evaluated with each of these systems, and discuss the benefits and limitations of each of these modalities.Materials and methods: A PubMed search was conducted to identify studies utilizing either dynamic or static whole shoulder models to assess rotator cuff pathology with or without subsequent repair. For each study, the repair method, the outcomes measured, and the loading forces used were collected. These were then compared between studies using either a dynamic or static model.Results: A total of 44 studies (34 static, 10 dynamic) were included for analysis. The most common repairs evaluated were superior capsular reconstruction (SCR; static: 35%; dynamic: 40%), no repair (static: 24%; dynamic: 30%), and suture anchor repair (static: 15%; dynamic: 30%). The most common outcome measures for static studies were superior humeral head migration (65%) and glenohumeral contact force (21%), while the most common outcomes in dynamic studies were maximum abduction (50%) and deltoid force at maximum abduction (40%).Conclusion: Currently, a majority of this research utilizes static models. Understanding the benefits and limitations of these systems is important for researchers hoping to employ these models in their future work.","PeriodicalId":49481,"journal":{"name":"Sports Medicine and Arthroscopy Review","volume":"33 2","pages":"69-74"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sports Medicine and Arthroscopy Review","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/JSA.0000000000000433","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The goal of this systematic review is to determine the prevalence of these testing systems in the current rotator cuff literature, determine the most common outcome measurements evaluated with each of these systems, and discuss the benefits and limitations of each of these modalities.

Materials and methods: A PubMed search was conducted to identify studies utilizing either dynamic or static whole shoulder models to assess rotator cuff pathology with or without subsequent repair. For each study, the repair method, the outcomes measured, and the loading forces used were collected. These were then compared between studies using either a dynamic or static model.

Results: A total of 44 studies (34 static, 10 dynamic) were included for analysis. The most common repairs evaluated were superior capsular reconstruction (SCR; static: 35%; dynamic: 40%), no repair (static: 24%; dynamic: 30%), and suture anchor repair (static: 15%; dynamic: 30%). The most common outcome measures for static studies were superior humeral head migration (65%) and glenohumeral contact force (21%), while the most common outcomes in dynamic studies were maximum abduction (50%) and deltoid force at maximum abduction (40%).

Conclusion: Currently, a majority of this research utilizes static models. Understanding the benefits and limitations of these systems is important for researchers hoping to employ these models in their future work.

查看原文本刊更多论文

应用静态和动态模型进行肩袖病理生物力学测试：系统综述。

目的：本系统综述的目的是确定这些测试系统在当前旋袖文献中的流行程度，确定每种系统评估的最常见结果测量，并讨论每种模式的优点和局限性。材料和方法：PubMed检索了使用动态或静态全肩模型评估肩袖病理是否进行后续修复的研究。对于每项研究，修复方法、测量结果和使用的加载力都被收集。然后在使用动态或静态模型的研究之间进行比较。结果：共纳入44项研究（34项静态研究，10项动态研究）进行分析。最常见的修复评估是上囊重建(SCR；静态:35%;动态：40%)，无修复(静态：24%；动态：30%)，缝合锚修复(静态：15%；动态:30%)。静态研究中最常见的结果测量指标是肱骨头上移（65%）和肩关节接触力（21%），而动态研究中最常见的结果是最大外展（50%）和最大外展时的三角肌力（40%）。结论：目前，本研究大多采用静态模型。了解这些系统的优点和局限性对于希望在未来工作中使用这些模型的研究人员非常重要。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Sports Medicine and Arthroscopy Review 医学-运动科学

CiteScore

4.10

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

>12 weeks

期刊介绍： Sports Medicine and Arthroscopy Review helps physicians digest the large volume of clinical literature in sports medicine and arthroscopy, identify the most important new developments, and apply new information effectively in clinical practice. Each issue is guest-edited by an acknowledged expert and focuses on a single topic or controversy. The Guest Editor invites the leading specialists on the topic to write review articles that highlight the most important advances. This unique format makes the journal more in-depth, authoritative, and practical than most publications in this field. The journal also includes dozens of full-color and black-and-white arthroscopic images and illustrations.