ArticleJournal of hand surgery global online2025
The Effect of Arm Abduction and Forearm Muscle Activation on Kinematics During Elbow Flexion.
Article in Journal of hand surgery global online, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: As the elbow flexes with the arm at the side (0° humerothoracic abduction, HTA), it loses its valgus carrying angle. When the arm is abducted to 90° HTA, a varus torque tensions the lateral ligaments. Our purpose was to quantify the effect of abduction on elbow kinematics during active motion and the effect of lateral forearm muscle activation. We hypothesized that arm abduction would increase elbow varus angulation throughout flexion, and lateral forearm muscle activation would decrease varus angulation. Methods: A dynamic elbow testing apparatus was employed in six human cadaver arms at two levels of arm abduction, 0° and 90° HTA. Six electromechanical actuators simulated muscle action, whereas joint position was measured to quantify the relationship between the forearm and humerus as the elbow was actively flexed. Results: All elbows maintained greater varus angle with the arm at 90° HTA compared with 0° HTA, significant at 60° flexion, 4.3° versus 3.4°, 90° flexion, 8.0° versus 6.8°, and 120° flexion, 10.5° versus 8.9°. The abducted elbow demonstrated less varus angle when the lateral stabilizers were activated. A significant difference was found at 30° flexion, 0.9 versus 1.5, 60° flexion, 3.8 versus 4.3, and 90° flexion, 7.6 versus 8.0. Conclusions: Elbow joint coronal plane kinematics were influenced by abduction of the arm to 90° HTA, and greater elbow varus angles were found throughout flexion when compared with the arm at side position (0° HTA). In addition, activation of lateral forearm muscles (90° HTA + Lat Stab) decreased elbow varus angulation throughout flexion. Clinical relevance: Understanding the effect of varus torque on elbow biomechanics and the degree to which these effects are countered through dynamic stabilization may assist in arthroplasty and ligamentous reconstruction designs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.