Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2017 Feb 28.
Published in final edited form as: J Biomech. 2016 Feb 8;49(4):611–617. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2016.01.029

The effects of a rotator cuff tear on activities of daily living in older adults: a kinematic analysis

Meghan E Vidt 1, Anthony C Santago II 2,3, Anthony P Marsh 4, Eric J Hegedus 5, Christopher J Tuohy 6, Gary G Poehling 6, Michael T Freehill 6, Michael E Miller 7, Katherine R Saul 3
PMCID: PMC4779416  NIHMSID: NIHMS758469  PMID: 26879327

Abstract

Rotator cuff tears (RCT) in older individuals may compound age-associated physiological changes and impact their ability to perform daily functional tasks. Our objective was to quantify thoracohumeral kinematics for functional tasks in 18 older adults (mean age=63.3±2.2), and compare findings from nine with a RCT to nine matched controls. Motion capture was used to record kinematics for 7 tasks (axilla wash, forward reach, functional pull, hair comb, perineal care, upward reach to 90°, upward reach to 105°) spanning the upper limb workspace. Maximum and minimum joint angles and motion excursion for the three thoracohumeral degrees of freedom (elevation plane, elevation, axial rotation) were identified for each task and compared between groups. The RCT group used greater minimum elevation angles for axilla wash and functional pull (p≤0.0124) and a smaller motion excursion for functional pull (p=0.0032) compared to the control group. The RCT group also used a more internally rotated maximum axial rotation angle than controls for functional reach, functional pull, hair comb, and upward reach to 105° (p≤0.0494). The most differences between groups were observed for axial rotation, with the RCT group using greater internal rotation to complete functional tasks, and significant differences between groups were identified for all three thoracohumeral degrees of freedom for functional pull. We conclude that older adults with RCT used more internal rotation to perform functional tasks than controls. The kinematic differences identified in this study may have consequences for progression of shoulder damage and further functional impairment in older adults with RCT.

Keywords: upper limb, thoracohumeral, kinematics, aging, rotator cuff tear

Introduction

Sarcopenia and reduced strength are well-known sequelae of aging contributing to functional declines older adults experience (Clark and Manini, 2010). Presence of a shoulder injury, like a rotator cuff tear (RCT), can further reduce an individual’s ability to perform functional tasks (Lin et al., 2008; van Schaardenburg et al., 1994). RCT is a common musculoskeletal injury for older adults, with prevalence increasing from 25.6% to 50.0% for adults in their sixties and eighties, respectively (Yamamoto et al., 2010). Shoulder injury may result in adaptive movements caused by muscle weakness or force imbalance (Lippitt and Matsen, 1993; Lippitt et al., 1993; Magarey and Jones, 2003; Phadke et al., 2009), or used as a pain avoidance strategy (Hall et al., 2011; Mell et al., 2005). In addition to limiting functionality, altered kinematics may expose the glenohumeral joint to new contact force scenarios, which could lead to further joint damage (Hsu et al., 2003; Vidt, 2014).

The upper limb is critical for daily functional tasks, including eating and personal hygiene (Katz et al., 1963). Studies evaluating upper limb functional task performance have primarily focused on younger or uninjured individuals (Magermans et al., 2005; Safaee-Rad et al., 1990; van Andel et al., 2008). Little work has focused on older adults (Hall et al., 2011) or investigated functional task performance in those with RCT. Therefore, our objective was to quantify thoracohumeral kinematics for a group of older adults with and without RCT during performance of functional tasks spanning the upper limb workspace. Kinematics for three thoracohumeral degrees of freedom were compared between groups. The null hypothesis was that task kinematics for RCT and control groups would not be different.

Methods

Participants

Eighteen older individuals (mean age=63.3±2.2) participated (Table 1); 9 participants (4F/5M) had RCT of the supraspinatus tendon; 9 were age- and sex-matched controls. RCT participants had an MRI-confirmed supraspinatus tendon tear (≥50% tendon thickness) and were recruited from our institution’s orthopaedic clinic, where they sought treatment for RCT symptoms. Controls were recruited from the local community, had no history of shoulder pain or injury, and were screened for shoulder pain and weakness using a modified lateral Jobe’s test (Gillooly et al., 2010), whereby manual resistance was applied to arms elevated 90° in the scapular plane with neutral axial rotation. RCT participants’ injured arm was studied and the dominant arm was investigated for controls. Wake Forest Health Sciences Institutional Review Board approved this study; all participants provided written informed consent prior to participation.

Table 1.

Participant characteristics.

Subject Age
(years)		 Height
(cm)		 Body mass
(kg)		 Dominant arm Injured arm
RF01 65 149.9 53.5 Right Left
RF02 63 160 73.5 Right Right
RF03 60 180.3 122.5 Right Right
RF04 65 162.6 65.8 Right Left
RM01 61 167.6 83.9 Right Left
RM02 64 177.8 108 Left Left
RM03 64 182.9 88.5 Right Left
RM04 62 177.8 95.3 Left Left
RM05 66 168.9 87.1 Right Left
CF01 67 172.7 70.8 Right N/A
CF02 65 162.6 65.8 Right N/A
CF03 60 157.5 79.4 Right N/A
CF04 64 160 60.3 Right N/A
CM01 61 177.8 99.8 Right N/A
CM02 64 182.9 86.2 Right N/A
CM03 62 172.7 73.5 Right N/A
CM04 61 175.3 70.3 Right N/A
CM05 66 182.9 83.9 Right N/A
RCT mean ± SD 63.3 ± 2.0 169.8 ± 11.0 86.4 ± 21.0
Control mean ± SD 63.3 ± 2.4 171.6 ± 9.5 76.7 ± 12.0
Open in a new tab

R: rotator cuff tear subject

C: control subject

F: female subject

M: male subject

N/A: not applicable

Functional tasks

Participants completed 7 functional tasks spanning the upper limb workspace: forward reach, functional pull, upward reach to a shelf at shoulder height (upward reach 90°) and 15° above horizontal (upward reach 105°), axilla wash, perineal care, and hair comb. All tasks were completed while seated (chair height=0.53m) at a table (height=0.775m). Descriptions of each task and associated loads, selected to mimic typical loads in daily performance, are described in Table 2. Participants were given instructions on start and finish hand positions for each task, but could freely choose their joint postures and speed during each movement. Task order was randomized; three trials of each task were recorded before proceeding to the next task. Participants were provided 60sec rest between trials and 2min rest between tasks. Participants were instructed to stop a task if they experienced any pain or discomfort (see below). The second trial of each task for each participant was used for analysis.

Table 2.

Functional tasks representative of activities of daily living. Participants were given instructions on the start and target hand locations for each task, and were allowed to freely choose their arm postures to reach the defined hand locations.

Task Task instructions Load
Forward reach1 Start with the humerus in 0° elevation in the 90° elevation plane (sagittal plane) and 2lb dumbbell resting on the table, reach with the weight a distance of 80% of forearm length, then return hand to starting position. 0.91kg (2lb) dumbbell (to mimic the weight of a typical kitchen object, like a plate)
Functional pull1 Start with humerus elevated in the 90° elevation plane (sagittal plane) such that the hand reaches a distance of 80% of the subject’s forearm length, holding the handle from a weight machine (6lb resistance), pull the handle until the humerus is in 0° elevation in the 90° elevation plane, then return hand to starting position. 2.72kg (6lb) resistance from pulley system (to mimic the resistance associated with opening a door)
Upward reach1

  • shoulder height (upward reach 90°)

  • 15° above horizontal (upward reach 105°)

 Start with humerus in 0° elevation in the 90° elevation plane (sagittal plane) and 2lb dumbbell resting on the table, reach upward to set the weight on the shelf, then return hand to starting position. 0.91kg (2lb) dumbbell (to mimic the weight of a typical kitchen object, like a plate)
Axilla wash2 Start with elbow extended and the humerus in 0° elevation in the 90° elevation plane (sagittal plane), resting quietly at the side, reach across the torso to touch the lateral aspect of the contralateral shoulder, then return hand to the starting position. No load
Perineal care2 Start with elbow extended and the humerus in 0° elevation in the 90° elevation plane (sagittal plane), resting quietly at the side, reach behind the torso and touch the center of the small of the back with the palmar side of the fingers/hand, then return hand to the starting position. No load
Hair comb2 Start with elbow extended and the humerus in 0° elevation in the 90° elevation plane (sagittal plane), resting quietly at the side holding a pencil (used to represent a comb), reach to the forehead, comb the center of the hair from front to back once and return hand to the starting position. No load; subjects were given a pencil to mimic holding a comb
Open in a new tab
1

Subjects were seated at a table to perform the task

2

Table was removed for task performance

Positions of twelve 1cm retro-reflective markers placed on the upper limb and torso (Figure 1) were tracked at 200Hz (60Hz for 3 participants) using 7 Hawk motion capture cameras (Motion Analysis Corporation, Santa Rosa, CA). Marker data was post-processed and smoothed with a 6Hz Butterworth filter using Cortex software (Motion Analysis Corporation).

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Motion definitions and marker locations. Thoracohumeral motion was defined as elevation plane, elevation, and axial rotation and calculated in accordance with ISB standards (Wu et al., 2005). Elevation in the 0° elevation plane is abduction and elevation in the 90° elevation plane is forward flexion; positive axial rotation is internal rotation and negative axial rotation is external rotation (Wu et al., 2005). Retro-reflective motion capture markers (red spheres) were placed on anatomical locations, including: the 7th cervical vertebra (C7), the most ventral aspect of the sternoclavicular joint (SC), xiphoid process (XP), the most lateral aspect of the scapular acromial angle (AA), the mid-upper arm (UA), the lateral epicondyle of the humerus (LE), the medial epicondyle of the humerus (ME), the mid-forearm (FA), the styloid process of the radius (RS), the styloid process of the ulna (US), the 2nd metacarpophalangeal joint (2MP), and the 5th metacarpophalangeal joint (5MP). One marker (not shown) was affixed to the top of the dumbbell weight (forward, upward reaches), the weight machine handle (functional pull), and the pencil (hair comb).

Kinematic calculations

A dynamic upper limb model (Saul et al., 2015) was implemented in OpenSim (v.3.1) (Delp et al., 2007). The model was scaled to each participant using marker locations from one static trial. Following scaling, the inverse kinematics tool calculated joint kinematics for each task. Kinematic trajectories were filtered with a zero-phase filter using a custom Matlab program (The Mathworks, Natick, MA). Consistent with ISB standards describing thoracohumeral motion (Wu et al., 2005), joint angles were decomposed by applying Y-X-Y rotation order, corresponding to elevation plane, elevation, and axial rotation, using axes defined from anatomical landmarks. Elevation in 0° elevation plane is abduction; elevation in 90° elevation plane is forward flexion; positive axial rotation is internal rotation; negative axial rotation is external rotation. Maximum and minimum angles were calculated for each degree of freedom (Figure 1). Motion excursion was calculated by subtracting the minimum angle from the maximum angle. To compare across participants, kinematics were normalized by task completion time and are presented as a percentage of total movement time.

Statistical analysis

Mixed model ANCOVA, using random effects to represent matched pairs and adjusting for hand dominance, was used to separately evaluate differences between RCT and control groups for maximum angle, minimum angle, and motion excursion of each degree of freedom for each task (v.9.3, SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC). Significance was set at p≤0.05. We did not adjust for type I error due to the exploratory nature of these analyses.

Results

Six RCT participants had full-thickness supraspinatus tear. Tears extended into infraspinatus in 7 participants and subscapularis in 5 participants. Three RCT participants did not complete all tasks due to pain: one could not complete perineal care and hair comb; one could not complete hair comb; one could not complete upward reach 105°. RCT participants completed several tasks with different kinematics than controls (Figure 2; Supplement 1, 2). Elevation plane was similar between groups for most tasks, but RCT participants used a smaller (closer to abduction plane) maximum elevation plane for forward reach (p=0.0300) and functional pull (p=0.0020) (Figure 2; Table 3). Minimum elevation angle for RCT participants was greater (more elevated) for axilla wash (p=0.0124) and functional pull (p=0.0047). RCT participants had smaller motion excursion for elevation during functional pull (p=0.0032). RCT participants used greater maximum internal rotation angles for forward reach (p=0.0004), functional pull (p=0.0296), hair comb (p=0.0494), and upward reach 105° (p=0.0337) than controls, and greater minimum internal rotation during upward reach 105° (p=0.0089) compared to controls.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Thoracohumeral kinematics during the performance of planar functional tasks. Mean ± standard deviation (SD) of kinematics are shown for the rotator cuff tear (RCT) group (gray dashed line, light shaded band) and control group (solid black line, dark shaded band). Mean maximum (±SD), mean minimum (±SD), and mean motion excursion are shown with bars to the right of the plot, with the horizontal line in the bars representing the mean joint angle for the task. ‡ indicates significant difference in maximum angle; § indicates significant difference between groups in minimum angle; * indicates significant difference between groups for motion excursion. For the forward reach task, the RCT group had a smaller (closer to abduction plane) maximal elevation plane (p=0.0300) angle (A) and greater maximum internal rotation angle (p=0.0004) (B) than the control group. For the functional pull, the RCT group used a smaller (closer to abduction plane) maximal elevation plane (p=0.0020) (C), greater minimum elevation angle (p=0.0047), and a smaller elevation motion excursion (p=0.0032) (D), and a greater maximal internal rotation joint angle (p=0.0296) (E). For the upward reach 105°, the RCT group used a greater maximum internal rotation angle (p=0.0337) and a greater minimum internal rotation angle (p=0.0089) (F) than controls. For the axilla wash, the RCT group used a greater minimum elevation angle (p=0.0124) (G) than controls. For the hair comb, the RCT group used a greater maximum internal rotation angle (p=0.0494) (H) than controls.

Table 3.

Group mean differences adjusting for hand dominance for maximum, minimum, and motion excursion (95% confidence interval) for elevation plane, elevation, and axial rotation for each functional task.

Maximum
Axilla wash Forward
reach		 Functional
pull		 Hair comb Perineal
care		 Upward
reach 90°		 Upward
reach 105°
Elevation plane 1.0 (−8.3, 10.2)
p = 0.8290		 9.5 (1.1, 17.9)
p = 0.0300* 		13.9 (6.0, 21.8)
p = 0.0020* 		2.9 (−10.6, 16.4)
p = 0.6319		 −5.9 (−40.6, 28.8)
p = 0.7033		 3.5 (−4.3, 11.3)
p = 0.3473		 3.5 (−4.4, 11.3)
p = 0.3588
Elevation −7.4 (−25.0, 10.3)
p = 0.3875		 −0.0 (−7.9, 7.9)
p = 0.9974		 0.6 (−7.2, 8.4)
p = 0.8770		 −3.0 (−19.7, 13.6)
p = 0.7007		 −3.2 (−13.5, 7.1)
p = 0.5153		 −1.1 (−8.5, 6.2)
p = 0.7478		 0.7 (−8.3, 9.6)
p = 0.8721
Axial rotation −9.7 (−20.7, 1.3)
p = 0.0778		 −13.2 (−18.3, −8.0)
p = 0.0004* 		−10.4 (−19.6, −1.2)
p = 0.0296* 		−13.2 (−26.4, −0.0)
p = 0.0494* 		−7.5 (−30.9, 16.0)
p = 0.4953		 −4.8 (−18.5, 8.9)
p = 0.4664		 −9.5 (−18.1, −1.0)
p = 0.0337*
Minimum
Axilla wash Forward
reach		 Functional
pull		 Hair comb Perineal
care		 Upward
reach 90°		 Upward
reach 105°
Elevation plane −21.0 (−63.1, 21.0)
p = 0.2902		 5.7 (−24.7, 36.1)
p = 0.6944		 5.1 (−22.1, 32.3)
p = 0.6947		 5.5 (−26.4, 37.3)
p = 0.6975		 −3.1 (−25.3, 19.0)
p = 0.7580		 −1.4 (−28.1, 25.3)
p = 0.9122		 11.2 (−11.2, 33.6)
p = 0.3005
Elevation −8.4 (−14.7, −2.1)
p = 0.0124* 		−6.0 (−13.3, 1.3)
p = 0.0992		 −10.0 (−16.4, −3.6)
p = 0.0047* 		−5.5 (−15.3, 4.2)
p = 0.2289		 −3.1 (−10.9, 4.7)
p = 0.4024		 −5.1 (−13.7, 3.6)
p = 0.2199		 −1.1 (−6.9, 4.7)
p = 0.6696
Axial rotation −20.8 (−42.7, 1.1)
p = 0.0601		 −6.2 (−15.4, 3.1)
p = 0.1674		 −8.6 (−19.0,1.8)
p = 0.0969		 −1.5 (−28.9, 25.9)
p = 0.9088		 −21.2 (−56.6, 14.2)
p = 0.2140		 −5.2 (−11.3, 1.0)
p = 0.0897		 −8.7 (−14.3, −3.0)
p = 0.0089*
Motion excursion
Axilla wash Forward
reach		 Functional
pull		 Hair comb Perineal
care		 Upward
reach 90°		 Upward
reach 105°
Elevation plane 23.8 (−20.1, 67.8)
p = 0.2657		 4.5 (−20.4, 29.4)
p = 0.7061		 8.8 (−16.5, 34.1)
p = 0.4700		 −3.1 (−29.8, 23.5)
p = 0.7867		 −4.0 (−37.6, 29.6)
p = 0.7964		 4.9 (−21.2, 31.0)
p = 0.6939		 −7.8 (−29.7, 14.2)
p = 0.4613
Elevation 1.0 (−16.5, 18.5)
p = 0.9038		 6.2 (−0.5, 12.8)
p = 0.0669		 10.5 (4.1, 17.0)
p = 0.0032* 		3.5 (−17.3, 24.2)
p = 0.7250		 −0.0 (−11.3, 11.2)
p = 0.9951		 4.3 (−1.6, 10.2)
p = 0.1346		 2.0 (−6.6, 10.6)
p = 0.6123
Axial rotation 12.7 (−7.8, 33.3)
p = 0.1971		 −6.0 (−13.0, 1.0)
p = 0.0880		 −1.9 (−6.8, 3.0)
p = 0.4325		 −11.8 (−43.7, 20.1)
p = 0.4395		 15.2 (−9.5, 39.8)
p = 0.1991		 0.6 (−8.8, 10.1)
p = 0.8876		 −1.1 (−9.1, 6.9)
p = 0.7590
Open in a new tab
*

indicates significance.

Discussion

We found older individuals with RCT completed functional reach, functional pull, hair comb, and upward reach 105° with more internal rotation than controls. The RCT group completed functional pull most differently, with differences identified in all three degrees of freedom. Kinematic differences identified for RCT participants across tasks may precipitate glenohumeral joint damage and increase functional impairment.

Three RCT participants could not complete all tasks due to pain because of extreme motion excursion requirements for hair comb and upward reach 105°. Pain observed in these participants is consistent with elevation and external rotation pain assessed clinically with physical (e.g. Beaudreuil et al., 2009) and self-report (e.g. MacDermid et al., 2004) assessments. One subject could not perform perineal care because axial rotation and sagittal plane elevation movements were limited by concomitant biceps tendon and superior labral pathology. While our analyses did not detect statistically different movements between groups for these tasks, this may be because failed trials were excluded from analyses. Movements requiring large motion excursion should be targets for adaptive movement strategy development to facilitate independence for older adults (Hall et al., 2011). Identification of individuals in this small cohort who could not perform these tasks suggests many older adults with RCT would be limited in movements requiring relatively large motion excursions in one (e.g. upward reach 105°) or more (e.g. hair comb) degrees of freedom.

These RCT participants consistently demonstrated greater internal rotation during functional reach, functional pull, hair comb, and upward reach 105°. This suggests internal rotation may be an adaptive strategy, possibly to avoid pain. Seven RCT participants had tears extending into infraspinatus, and external rotation can exacerbate pain when infraspinatus is involved (Beaudreuil et al., 2009). Efforts to avoid painful postures may expose the shoulder to impingement, particularly at more elevated postures (Ellenbecker and Cools, 2010). Alternatively, increased internal rotation may result from muscle force imbalance; strength assessments for these same RCT participants (Vidt et al., 2015) demonstrated markedly reduced external rotation strength. Force imbalances may affect glenohumeral loading characteristics, which can lead to further joint damage (Hsu et al., 2003) and other pathology, like humeral head translation. Contrasting our findings, Hall et al. (2011) studied functional upper limb tasks and reported older adults with impingement used less internal rotation than controls; these conflicting findings may result from studying different shoulder pathologies, or the high prevalence of concomitant infraspinatus tears in this study’s cohort.

Increased internal rotation for RCT participants may be due to deltoid and pectoral muscle compensation in the absence of a fully functional rotator cuff. Normally, muscular activation and co-activation strategies provide glenohumeral stability during movement (Hawkes et al., 2012a). Following RCT, other muscles must compensate for damaged rotator cuff muscle(s) to maintain stability (Hawkes et al., 2012b). Kinematic differences observed here, particularly for internal rotation, may reflect altered muscle activation patterns following RCT (Hawkes et al., 2012b), or age-associated altered co-contraction (Klein et al., 2001). Future work should explore relationships between muscle activation and functional task kinematics, including tasks requiring large motion excursion (e.g. hair comb) and load movement (e.g. forward reach) for individuals with RCT. Such work would provide insight into which treatment paradigms could best improve functional performance or aid in adaptive strategy development promoting functional independence.

Kinematic differences identified following RCT may expose the shoulder to increased risk for subsequent damage and functional impairment. For example, greater internal rotation observed for RCT participants may indicate subacromial impingement, which reduces the space between the humeral head and acromion, compressing the subacromial bursa and rotator cuff tendons (Braman et al., 2014; Michener et al., 2003). Previous work reports glenohumeral internal rotation is associated with increased risk for impingement of anterior structures (Flatow et al., 1994; Ludewig and Braman, 2011; Werner et al., 2006; Yanai et al., 2006). The underlying cause of RCT is likely multifactorial, and additional factors, like overuse, overhead activities, or acromial anatomy, may further contribute to RCT development (Soslowsky et al., 2002). While it remains unknown whether impingement causes or results from RCT (Braman et al., 2014; Ludewig and Braman, 2011; Michener et al., 2003), RCT-associated impingement can contribute to further RCT progression (Ludewig and Braman, 2011), possibly exacerbating functional limitations. Restoration of internal rotation during functional tasks could reduce impingement risk, but pain associated with concomitant infraspinatus tearing may preclude use of externally rotated postures.

This work has limitations. A small cohort of 18 individuals was studied. Our sample included individuals with full- and partial-thickness supraspinatus tears, and included participants with tears extending into infraspinatus or subscapularis tendons, although none were full-width. However, all patients experienced RCT symptoms, sought treatment, and had tear confirmation with MRI. Controls were screened using a lateral Jobe’s test. Sensitivity of this manual exam is 81% (Gillooly et al. 2010), thus it is possible that an asymptomatic tear was not identified. Controls did not receive an MRI to screen for asymptomatic RCT, but since 16.9% of the population has been reported to have an asymptomatic RCT (Yamamoto et al., 2010), future studies should use MRI to screen for asymptomatic tears. This study evaluated thoracohumeral kinematics but did not examine scapulothoracic or glenohumeral kinematics. Since all joints of the shoulder girdle contribute to upper limb movement, future work should also examine a RCT’s effect on scapulothoracic and glenohumeral kinematics. The significant differences in kinematics identified here motivate further exploration of these and additional functional tasks in a larger cohort to more comprehensively characterize functional implications of RCT in older adults.

This study provides baseline measures of thoracohumeral kinematics associated with several common functional tasks in older adults with and without RCT, which can be compared to other pathologies or groups following treatment. Additionally, these data may be used in conjunction with computational analysis (e.g. Vidt, 2014) to further explore strength requirements, joint loading, and clinical implications of RCT-induced alterations to upper limb kinematics.

Supplementary Material

1
2
3

Acknowledgments

This study was funded by the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health (#F31AG040921 (Vidt)), the Wake Forest University Claude D. Pepper Older Americans Independence Center (#P30AG021332), the National Science Foundation (#1405246 (Saul)), the Wake Forest Center for Biomolecular Imaging and the Wake Forest School of Medicine Translational Science Institute Clinical Research Unit. The sponsors of this study had no involvement in study design, collection, analysis, or interpretation of data, writing of this manuscript, or the decision to submit to this journal for publication.

Footnotes

Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Clinical Trials Registration Number: NCT#01459536

Conflict of Interest Statement

Michael Freehill serves as a consultant for Smith and Nephew. No financial remuneration was received related to information from this study and it does not represent a conflict of interest. Christopher Tuohy declares an ownership interest in a medical device with research applications that measures rotator cuff tendon repair tension; all participation in device development and testing is beyond the scope of this manuscript and does not represent a conflict of interest. No other authors have any conflicts of interest to disclose related to this manuscript.

References

  1. Beaudreuil J, Nizard R, Thomas T, Peyre M, Liotard JP, Boileau P, Marc T, Dromard C, Steyer E, Bardin T, Orcel P, Walch G. Contribution of clinical tests to the diagnosis of rotator cuff disease: a systematic literature review. Joint Bone Spine. 2009;76(1):15–19. doi: 10.1016/j.jbspin.2008.04.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Braman JP, Zhao KD, Lawrence RL, Harrison AK, Ludewig PM. Shoulder impingement revisited: evolution of diagnostic understanding in orthopedic surgery and physical therapy. Med. Biol. Eng. Comput. 2014;52(3):211–219. doi: 10.1007/s11517-013-1074-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Clark BC, Manini TM. Functional consequences of sarcopenia and dynapenia in the elderly. Curr. Opin. Clin. Nutr. Metab. Care. 2010;13(3):271–276. doi: 10.1097/MCO.0b013e328337819e. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Delp SL, Anderson FC, Arnold AS, Loan P, Habib A, John CT, Guendelman E, Thelen DG. OpenSim: open-source software to create and analyze dynamic simulations of movement. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 2007;54(11):1940–1950. doi: 10.1109/TBME.2007.901024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Ellenbecker TS, Cools A. Rehabilitation of shoulder impingement syndrome and rotator cuff injuries: an evicence-based review. Br. J. Sports Med. 2010;44:319–327. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.2009.058875. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Flatow EL, Soslowsky LJ, Ticker JB, Pawluk RJ, Hepler M, Ark J, Mow VC, Bigliani LU. Excursion of the rotator cuff under the acromion. Patterns of subacromial contact. Am. J. Sports Med. 1994;22(6):779–788. doi: 10.1177/036354659402200609. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Gillooly JJ, Chidambaram R, Mok D. The lateral Jobe test: A more reliable method of diagnosing rotator cuff tears. Int. J. Shoulder Surg. 2010;4(2):41–43. doi: 10.4103/0973-6042.70822. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Hall LC, Middlebrook EE, Dickerson CR. Analysis of the influence of rotator cuff impingements on upper limb kinematics in an elderly population during activities of daily living. Clin. Biomech. 2011;26(6):579–584. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2011.02.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Hawkes DH, Alizadehkhaiyat O, Fisher AC, Kemp GJ, Roebuck MM, Frostick SP. Normal shoulder muscular activation and co-ordination during a shoulder elevation task based on activities of daily living: an electromyographic study. J. Orthop. Res. 2012a;30(1):53–60. doi: 10.1002/jor.21482. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Hawkes DH, Alizadehkhaiyat O, Kemp GJ, Fisher AC, Roebuck MM, Frostick SP. Shoulder muscle activation and coordination in patients with a massive rotator cuff tear: an electromyographic study. J. Orthop. Res. 2012b;30(7):1140–1146. doi: 10.1002/jor.22051. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Hsu HC, Luo ZP, Stone JJ, Huang TH, An KN. Correlation between rotator cuff tear and glenohumeral degeneration. Acta Orthop. Scand. 2003;74(1):89–94. doi: 10.1080/00016470310013725. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Katz S, Ford AB, Moskowitz RW, Jackson BA, Jaffe MW. Studies of Illness in the Aged. The Index of Adl: A Standardized Measure of Biological and Psychosocial Function. JAMA. 1963;185:914–919. doi: 10.1001/jama.1963.03060120024016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Klein CS, Rice CL, Marsh GD. Normalized force, activation, and coactivation in the arm muscles of young and old men. J. Appl. Physiol. 2001;91(3):1341–1349. doi: 10.1152/jappl.2001.91.3.1341. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Lin JC, Weintraub N, Aragaki DR. Nonsurgical treatment for rotator cuff injury in the elderly. J. Am. Med. Dir. Assoc. 2008;9(9):626–632. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2008.05.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Lippitt S, Matsen F. Mechanisms of glenohumeral joint stability. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 1993;291:20–28. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Lippitt SB, Vanderhooft JE, Harris SL, Sidles JA, Harryman DT, 2nd, Matsen FA., 3rd Glenohumeral stability from concavity-compression: A quantitative analysis. J. Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1993;2(1):27–35. doi: 10.1016/S1058-2746(09)80134-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Ludewig PM, Braman JP. Shoulder impingement: biomechanical considerations in rehabilitation. Man. Ther. 2011;16(1):33–39. doi: 10.1016/j.math.2010.08.004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. MacDermid JC, Ramos J, Drosdowech D, Faber K, Patterson S. The impact of rotator cuff pathology on isometric and isokinetic strength, function, and quality of life. J. Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2004;13(6):593–598. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2004.03.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Magarey ME, Jones MA. Specific evaluation of the function of force couples relevant for stabilization of the glenohumeral joint. Man. Ther. 2003;8(4):247–253. doi: 10.1016/s1356-689x(03)00095-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Magermans DJ, Chadwick EK, Veeger HE, van der Helm FC. Requirements for upper extremity motions during activities of daily living. Clin. Biomech. 2005;20(6):591–599. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2005.02.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Mell AG, LaScalza S, Guffey P, Ray J, Maciejewski M, Carpenter JE, Hughes RE. Effect of rotator cuff pathology on shoulder rhythm. J. Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005;14(1 Suppl. S):58S–64S. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2004.09.018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Michener LA, McClure PW, Karduna AR. Anatomical and biomechanical mechanisms of subacromial impingement syndrome. Clin. Biomech. 2003;18(5):369–379. doi: 10.1016/s0268-0033(03)00047-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Phadke V, Camargo P, Ludewig P. Scapular and rotator cuff muscle activity during arm elevation: A review of normal function and alterations with shoulder impingement. Rev. Bras. Fisioter. 2009;13(1):1–9. doi: 10.1590/S1413-35552009005000012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Safaee-Rad R, Shwedyk E, Quanbury AO, Cooper JE. Normal functional range of motion of upper limb joints during performance of three feeding activities. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 1990;71(7):505–509. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Saul K, Hu X, Goehler C, Vidt M, Daly M, Velisar A, Murray W. Benchmarking of dynamic simulation predictions in two software platforms using an upper limb musculoskeletal model. Comput. Methods Biomech. Biomed. Eng. 2015;18(13):1445–1458. doi: 10.1080/10255842.2014.916698. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Soslowsky LJ, Thomopoulos S, Esmail A, Flanagan CL, Iannotti JP, Williamson JD, 3rd, Carpenter JE. Rotator cuff tendinosis in an animal model: role of extrinsic and overuse factors. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 2002;30(8):1057–1063. doi: 10.1114/1.1509765. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. van Andel CJ, Wolterbeek N, Doorenbosch CA, Veeger DH, Harlaar J. Complete 3D kinematics of upper extremity functional tasks. Gait Posture. 2008;27(1):120–127. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2007.03.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. van Schaardenburg D, Van den Brande KJ, Ligthart GJ, Breedveld FC, Hazes JM. Musculoskeletal disorders and disability in persons aged 85 and over: a community survey. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 1994;53(12):807–811. doi: 10.1136/ard.53.12.807. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Vidt ME. Dissertation. Winston-Salem, North Carolina: Wake Forest University; 2014. Muscle structure and function in older adults with a rotator cuff tear. [Google Scholar]
  30. Vidt ME, Santago AS, II, Tuohy CJ, Poehling GG, Freehill MT, Kraft RA, Marsh AP, Hegedus EJ, Miller ME, Saul KR. Assessments of fatty infiltration and muscle atrophy from a single magnetic resonance image slice are not predictive of three-dimensional measurements. Arthroscopy. 2015 doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2015.06.035. (Epub ahead of print) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Werner CM, Blumenthal S, Curt A, Gerber C. Subacromial pressures in vivo and effects of selective experimental suprascapular nerve block. J. Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006;15(3):319–323. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2005.08.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Wu G, van der Helm FC, Veeger HE, Makhsous M, Van Roy P, Anglin C, Nagels J, Karduna AR, McQuade K, Wang X, Werner FW, Buchholz B. ISB recommendation on definitions of joint coordinate systems of various joints for the reporting of human joint motion--Part II: shoulder, elbow, wrist and hand. J. Biomech. 2005;38(5):981–992. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2004.05.042. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Yamamoto A, Takagishi K, Osawa T, Yanagawa T, Nakajima D, Shitara H, Kobayashi T. Prevalence and risk factors of a rotator cuff tear in the general population. J. Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010;19(1):116–120. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2009.04.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Yanai T, Fuss FK, Fukunaga T. In vivo measurements of subacromial impingement: substantial compression develops in abduction with large internal rotation. Clin. Biomech. 2006;21(7):692–700. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2006.03.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

1
NIHMS758469-supplement-1.docx (34.8KB, docx)
2
NIHMS758469-supplement-2.tif (18.2MB, tif)
3
NIHMS758469-supplement-3.tif (14.7MB, tif)

RESOURCES