Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery

, Volume 135, Issue 2, pp 171–177 | Cite as

Low preoperative Constant score is a negative predictive factor for postoperative proprioception after total shoulder arthroplasty in osteoarthritis

  • Michael W. Maier
  • Sarah Lauer
  • Sebastian I. Wolf
  • Thomas Dreher
  • Matthias C. Klotz
  • Felix Zeifang
  • Markus Rickert
Orthopaedic Surgery



Shoulder proprioception in patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis and the effect of total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) on proprioception have been evaluated previously. Measuring proprioception with an active angle reproduction (AAR) test, proprioception remained unchanged or deteriorated in a short follow-up period after shoulder replacement. Therefore, the purpose of this prospective study was to evaluate the influence of the preoperative Constant score (CS) on postoperative proprioceptive outcome after TSA in patients with primary osteoarthritis to address the question of whether the preoperative state of shoulder function influences postoperative proprioceptive outcome.


Twenty-four patients who received total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) (n = 24) for primary osteoarthritis of the shoulder were enrolled. After retrospectively analyzing the preoperative CS for 120 patients with primary osteoarthritis of the shoulder who received TSA, the patient group was divided into three subgroups according to preoperative functional assessment of the shoulder using the CS. Group one consisted of patients with CS < 20, group two patients with CS 20–30, and group three patients with the best preoperative CS (>30). In all patients proprioception was examined 1 day before the operation and 3 months after surgery by 3D motion analysis with an AAR test and also CS.


Postoperatively, proprioception in group one (CS < 20) deteriorated significantly from 5.2° (SD 2.2) to 8.1° (SD 1.8); p = 0.018. In group two, there were no significant changes from preoperative to postoperative status [8.7° (SD 2.1) vs. 9.3° (SD 2.7) (p = 0.554)], likewise in group three [6.3° (SD 2.3) preoperatively vs. 6.9° (SD 3.3) postoperatively (p = 0.617)]. Comparing the postoperative results, the best proprioception [6.9° (SD 3.3)] was found in the group that had the best preoperative CS (group three, CS > 30).


In conclusion, a low preoperative CS is a negative predictive factor for postoperative proprioception after TSA. We should keep that in mind when determining the best timepoint for shoulder replacement in patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis.


Shoulder arthroplasty Constant score Proprioception Joint position sense Angle reproduction test Total shoulder arthroplasty 3D video analysis 



We thank the research fund of the Department of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery of the University of Heidelberg for the financial support of the study. Furthermore, we would like to thank the motion analysis team of the University of Heidelberg, especially Oliver Rettig for the practical support during the study. Research fund of the Department of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery of the Hospital of the University of Heidelberg. The local ethics committee approved the study (S-305/2007), and all patients consented to the study.

Conflict of interest

All authors, their immediate family, and any research foundation with which they are affiliated did not receive any financial payments or other benefits from any commercial entity related to the subject of this article.


  1. 1.
    Orfaly RM et al (2003) A prospective functional outcome study of shoulder arthroplasty for osteoarthritis with an intact rotator cuff. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 12(3):214–221PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cuomo F, Birdzell MG, Zuckerman JD (2005) The effect of degenerative arthritis and prosthetic arthroplasty on shoulder proprioception. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 14(4):345–348PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kasten P et al (2009) Proprioception in total, hemi- and reverse shoulder arthroplasty in 3D motion analyses: a prospective study. Int Orthop 33(6):1641–1647PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Maier MW et al (2012) Proprioception 3 years after shoulder arthroplasty in 3D motion analysis: a prospective study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 13:1003–1010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Neer CS 2nd (1955) Articular replacement for the humeral head. J Bone Joint Surg Am 37-A(2):215–228PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rettig O et al (2009) A new kinematic model of the upper extremity based on functional joint parameter determination for shoulder and elbow. Gait Posture 30(4):469–476PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wu G et al (2005) 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 38(5):981–992PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chiari L et al (2005) Human movement analysis using stereophotogrammetry. Part 2: instrumental errors. Gait Posture 21(2):197–211PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gamage SS, Lasenby J (2002) New least squares solutions for estimating the average centre of rotation and the axis of rotation. J Biomech 35(1):87–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Doorenbosch CA, Harlaar J, Veeger DH (2003) The globe system: an unambiguous description of shoulder positions in daily life movements. J Rehabil Res Dev 40(2):147–155PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Iannotti JP, Norris TR (2003) Influence of preoperative factors on outcome of shoulder arthroplasty for glenohumeral osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85-A(2):51–258Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael W. Maier
    • 1
  • Sarah Lauer
    • 1
  • Sebastian I. Wolf
    • 1
  • Thomas Dreher
    • 1
  • Matthias C. Klotz
    • 1
  • Felix Zeifang
    • 1
  • Markus Rickert
    • 2
  1. 1.Clinic for Orthopedics and Trauma SurgeryHeidelberg University HospitalHeidelbergGermany
  2. 2.Department for Orthopedic SurgeryUniversity of GießenGießenGermany

Personalised recommendations