Abstract
The Stanford Upper Extremity Model (SUEM) (Holzbauer, Murray, Delp 2005, Ann Biomed Eng) includes the major muscles of the upper limb and has recently been described in scientific literature for various biomechanical purposes including modeling the muscle behavior after shoulder arthroplasty (Hoenecke, Flores-Hernandez, D'Lima 2014, J Shoulder Elbow Surg; Walker, Struk, Banks 2013, ISTA Proceedings). The initial publication of the SUEM compared the muscle moment arm predictions of the SUEM against various moment arm studies and all with the scapula fixed. A more recent study (Ackland, Pak, and Pandy 2008, J Anat) is now available that can be used to compare SUEM moment arm predictions to cadaver data for similar muscle sub-regions, during abduction and flexion motions, and with simulated scapular motion.
SUEM muscle moment arm component vectors were calculated using the OpenSim Analyze Tool for an idealized abduction and an idealized flexion motion from 10° to 90° that corresponded to the motions described in Ackland for the cadaver arms. The normalized, averaged muscle moment arm data for the cadavers was manually digitized from the published figures and then resampled into uniform angles matching the SUEM data. Standard deviations of the muscle moment arms from the cadaver study were calculated from source data provided by the study authors. Python code was then used to calculate the differences, percent differences, and root-mean-square (RMS) values between the data sets.
Of the 14 muscle groups in the SUEM, the smallest difference in predicted and measured moment arm was for the supraspinatus during the abduction task, with an RMS of the percent difference of 11.4%. In contrast, the middle latissimus dorsi had an RMS percent difference over 400% during the flexion task. The table presents the RMS difference and the RMS of the percent difference for the muscles with the largest abduction and adduction moment arms (during abduction) and the largest flexion and extension moment arms (during flexion). The moment arm data for the SUEM model and the cadaver data (with 1 standard deviation band) during the motion of the same muscles are provided in Figure 1 for the Abduction motion task and in Figure 2 for the Flexion motion task.
It is challenging to simulate the three dimensional, time variant geometries of shoulder muscles while maintaining model fidelity and optimizing computational cost. Dividing muscles in to sub regions and using wrapping line segment approximations appears a reasonable strategy though more work could improve model accuracy especially during complex three dimensional motions.
