Inconsistency in Shoulder Arthrometers for Measuring Glenohumeral Joint Laxity: A Systematic Review

last updated: 2023-07-20
ProjectDILATO :: publications list
TitleInconsistency in Shoulder Arthrometers for Measuring Glenohumeral Joint Laxity: A Systematic Review
Publication TypePapers in Scientific Journals
Year of Publication2023
AuthorsGomes E., Andrade R., Valente C., Victor Santos J., Nunos J., Carvalho O., Correlo V. M., Silva F. S., Oliveira J. M., Reis R. L., and Espregueira-Mendes J. D.

There is no consensus on how to measure shoulder joint laxity and results reported in the literature are not well systematized for the available shoulder arthrometer devices. This systematic review aims to summarize the results of currently available shoulder arthrometers for measuring glenohumeral laxity in individuals with healthy or injured shoulders. Searches were conducted on the PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases to identify studies that measure glenohumeral laxity with arthrometer-assisted assessment. The mean and standard deviations of the laxity measurement from each study were compared based on the type of population and arthrometer used. Data were organized according to the testing characteristics. A total of 23 studies were included and comprised 1162 shoulders. Populations were divided into 401 healthy individuals, 278 athletes with asymptomatic shoulder, and 134 individuals with symptomatic shoulder. Sensors were the most used method for measuring glenohumeral laxity and stiffness. Most arthrometers applied an external force to the humeral head or superior humerus by a manual-assisted mechanism. Glenohumeral laxity and stiffness were mostly assessed in the sagittal plane. There is substantial heterogeneity in glenohumeral laxity values that is mostly related to the arthrometer used and the testing conditions. This variability can lead to inconsistent results and influence the diagnosis and treatment decision-making.

Date Published2023-07-04
Keywordsarthrometer, laxity, Shoulder, stiffness
Peer reviewedyes

Back to top