Journal of hand therapy : official journal of the American Society of Hand Therapists · 2026
Measuring the clavicular kinematics: A systematic review and an exploratory study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Tang Chun-Kai, Lin Yin-Liang, Shih Yi-Fen
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Clavicular kinematics are commonly measured using electromagnetic tracking systems, but variations exist regarding the recording methods and findings.
PURPOSE: This study aims to (1) systematically review clavicular kinematics during humeral elevation, (2) compare the clavicular kinematics and measurement reliability between the acromial sensor and clavicular sensor measurements.
STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review and an exploratory study.
METHODS: A PRISMA-guided systematic review with nine studies included and an exploratory study with 11 asymptomatic participants were conducted. The clavicular kinematics were measured during shoulder abduction, flexion, and scaption from 30-120 degrees of humeral elevation and descent using an electromagnetic tracking system. Reliability was assessed with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), and kinematics were compared with two-way repeated-measures ANOVA.
RESULTS: The systematic review showed consistent clavicular movement patterns in the bone pin studies. Variations in clavicular movement mainly occurred for clavicular protraction/retraction, particularly between the acromial sensor and clavicular sensor surface sensor methods. The exploratory study echoed findings of the systematic review that significantly different patterns of clavicular elevation/depression and protraction/retraction were found between the clavicular sensor and the acromial sensor methods (angle-by-sensor interactions F = 4.016-32.963, p = 0.035 to <0.001, ηp2 = 0.182-0.622). Clavicular posterior/anterior rotation could only be measured using the clavicular sensor method. Both sensor methods had excellent measurement reliability for clavicular elevation/depression, and the clavicular sensor method resulted in better ICCs for the protraction/retraction (clavicular sensor: 0.82-0.94, acromial sensor: 0.64-0.91). The clavicular sensor measurement of clavicular kinematics aligned better with bone pin studies.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that the choice of sensor placement has a significant influence on the assessment of clavicular kinematics. The clavicular sensor provided more accurate and reliable measurements and is more closely aligned with bone pin data. These findings support the adoption of clavicular sensor placement in future research and clinical assessments to enhance the validity of clavicular motion analysis.
PURPOSE: This study aims to (1) systematically review clavicular kinematics during humeral elevation, (2) compare the clavicular kinematics and measurement reliability between the acromial sensor and clavicular sensor measurements.
STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review and an exploratory study.
METHODS: A PRISMA-guided systematic review with nine studies included and an exploratory study with 11 asymptomatic participants were conducted. The clavicular kinematics were measured during shoulder abduction, flexion, and scaption from 30-120 degrees of humeral elevation and descent using an electromagnetic tracking system. Reliability was assessed with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), and kinematics were compared with two-way repeated-measures ANOVA.
RESULTS: The systematic review showed consistent clavicular movement patterns in the bone pin studies. Variations in clavicular movement mainly occurred for clavicular protraction/retraction, particularly between the acromial sensor and clavicular sensor surface sensor methods. The exploratory study echoed findings of the systematic review that significantly different patterns of clavicular elevation/depression and protraction/retraction were found between the clavicular sensor and the acromial sensor methods (angle-by-sensor interactions F = 4.016-32.963, p = 0.035 to <0.001, ηp2 = 0.182-0.622). Clavicular posterior/anterior rotation could only be measured using the clavicular sensor method. Both sensor methods had excellent measurement reliability for clavicular elevation/depression, and the clavicular sensor method resulted in better ICCs for the protraction/retraction (clavicular sensor: 0.82-0.94, acromial sensor: 0.64-0.91). The clavicular sensor measurement of clavicular kinematics aligned better with bone pin studies.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that the choice of sensor placement has a significant influence on the assessment of clavicular kinematics. The clavicular sensor provided more accurate and reliable measurements and is more closely aligned with bone pin data. These findings support the adoption of clavicular sensor placement in future research and clinical assessments to enhance the validity of clavicular motion analysis.