Concave/Convex
1
Article Critique: The Convex-Concave Rules of Arthrokinematics: Flawed or Perhaps Just Misinterpreted
Article Critique:
The Convex-Concave Rules of Arthrokinematics: Flawed or Perhaps Just Misinterpreted
Donald Neumann, PT, PhD, FAPTA
Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy George Carnage
PHT 5125 In this article, the author, Neumann (2012), poses the question of whether or not the convex-concave rules are flawed or misinterpreted, after receiving questions as to whether these rules should still be taught in college or continuing education physical therapy programs (p.53). In order to accurately affirm if the rules are indeed flawed or misinterpreted, Neumann (2012) chooses to examine the convex-concave rule as applied to studies performed on the arthrokinematics of abduction of the glenohumeral joint (GH). The convex – concave rule states that during typical joint motion, a moving bone turns around a stable bone. The non-moving bone provides stabilizing joint surface for moving bone (Foster 2013, p. 59). In reference to the arthokinematics of abduction of the GH, “the convex humeral head rolls superior relative to the glenoid fossa as a point on its articular surface simultaneously slides inferior” (Neumann 2012, p.53). However, Neumann (2012) points out that the flaw, showing that the humeral head remained nearly stationary or translated upward when performing at certain degrees (p.53). Although he proved the flaw, Neumann (2012) states the misinterpretation could be due to the humeral head actually only migrates about 1mm to 3mm proving there is an inferior slide during GH joint abduction (p.53).
In my opinion, Neumann’s purpose was to determine if the “norm” convex-concave rule is still valid for use in educating physical therapists. Throughout the article it is apparent that where the convex-concave rule can be applied (or misinterpreted) you can also find a flaw. That being said, as Neumann (2012) stated this article
Article Critique: The Convex-Concave Rules of Arthrokinematics: Flawed or Perhaps Just Misinterpreted
Article Critique:
The Convex-Concave Rules of Arthrokinematics: Flawed or Perhaps Just Misinterpreted
Donald Neumann, PT, PhD, FAPTA
Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy George Carnage
PHT 5125 In this article, the author, Neumann (2012), poses the question of whether or not the convex-concave rules are flawed or misinterpreted, after receiving questions as to whether these rules should still be taught in college or continuing education physical therapy programs (p.53). In order to accurately affirm if the rules are indeed flawed or misinterpreted, Neumann (2012) chooses to examine the convex-concave rule as applied to studies performed on the arthrokinematics of abduction of the glenohumeral joint (GH). The convex – concave rule states that during typical joint motion, a moving bone turns around a stable bone. The non-moving bone provides stabilizing joint surface for moving bone (Foster 2013, p. 59). In reference to the arthokinematics of abduction of the GH, “the convex humeral head rolls superior relative to the glenoid fossa as a point on its articular surface simultaneously slides inferior” (Neumann 2012, p.53). However, Neumann (2012) points out that the flaw, showing that the humeral head remained nearly stationary or translated upward when performing at certain degrees (p.53). Although he proved the flaw, Neumann (2012) states the misinterpretation could be due to the humeral head actually only migrates about 1mm to 3mm proving there is an inferior slide during GH joint abduction (p.53).
In my opinion, Neumann’s purpose was to determine if the “norm” convex-concave rule is still valid for use in educating physical therapists. Throughout the article it is apparent that where the convex-concave rule can be applied (or misinterpreted) you can also find a flaw. That being said, as Neumann (2012) stated this article