Breaking the operator variability in Kibler’s scapular dyskinesis assessment

Abstract

IntroductionAlterations of scapular kinematics are generically reported as scapular dyskinesis (SD), and are a nonspecific response to various shoulder pathologies. The most widely used classification is Kibler’s (K), which is, however, characterized by poor sensitivity. To overcome this limit, using a 3D motion analysis system, we identified a specific pattern for each type of SD according to Kibler.Materials and methodsWe analyzed 34 patients with a total of 68 shoulders who came to our observation for shoulder pain. All patients underwent clinical examination, video-recording and motion analysis with SHoW Motion 3D kinematic tracking system (SM). Three independent observers classified SD into K types I, II and III. Only patients with concordant classification among the 3 operators were studied to identify a characteristic graphic pattern by type of SD.ResultsTypical patterns emerged from the examination with SM. K. type 1 consists of decreased or reversed posterior tilt and increased protraction in flexion–extension (FE) in early degrees of motion. K. type 2 consists of increased protraction and marked reversal of lateral rotation in abduction–adduction (Ab–Ad) in early degrees of movement. K. type 3 has been subdivided into two subgroups: K. type 3-A, composed of patients with massive rotator cuff lesions, shows an increase in all scapular movements in both FE and Ab–Ad. K. type 3-B, composed of patients with scapular stiffness and/or impingement, presents a slight increase in posterior tilt and lateral rotation in the final grades of FE and Ab–Ad.ConclusionsThe SM system allows reproducible dynamic analyses with low intra- and intra- operator variability. In our study, we demonstrated its applicability in the classification of SD. It also provides an objective and quantitative assessment of motor pattern alteration that is essential in the follow-up of patients to evaluate the effectiveness of rehabilitation and/or surgical treatment.Level of Evidence 3According to "The Oxford 2011 Levels of Evidence".