Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Influence of the Diameter of Grasped Spheres on the Rotation Angle and Axis of the Second to Fifth Carpometacarpal Joints

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Medical and Biological Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

While previous studies have investigated the range of motion of the carpometacarpal (CMC) joints, there have been no results reported regarding the effects of the size of the grasped object. Therefore, we used a finite helical axis representation to investigate the rotation angles and rotation axes of the second to fifth CMC joints when three spheres with different diameters were grasped. Nine Japanese men were selected. Three-dimensional bone models were constructed based on cross-sectional images of the hand using X-ray computed tomography. Imaging was conducted under four conditions: a baseline posture without holding a sphere and postures in which three spheres with different diameters (table tennis ball: 40-mm; tennis ball: 67-mm; softball: 97-mm) were grasped. For all grasped spheres, the rotation angle was smallest for the third CMC joint and largest for the fifth CMC joint. Rotation angles were almost the same for all CMC joints regardless of the size of the grasped sphere. To quantitatively evaluate rotation axes, the angle created with the Z-axis (radioulnar axis) when the rotation axis was projected on the YZ plane (coronal plane) was defined as α (− 90° < α ≤ 90°). For the rotational axis, α angles of the second and fifth CMC joints tended to decrease as the diameter of the grasped sphere increased. Results demonstrated that in the spheres examined in the present study, CMC joint rotation axes rather than angles changed in response to differences in sphere size.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Marzke, M. W., & Marzke, R. F. (2000). Evolution of the human hand: Approaches to acquiring, analysing and interpreting the anatomical evidence. Journal of Anatomy, 197(Pt 1), 121–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Young, R. W. (2003). Evolution of the human hand: The role of throwing and clubbing. Journal of Anatomy, 202(1), 165–174.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. Napier, J. R. (1956). The prehensile movements of the human hand. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 38B(4), 902–913.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Landsmeer, J. M. F. (1962). Power grip and precision handling. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 21(2), 164–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kamakura, N., Matsuo, M., Ishii, H., Mitsuboshi, F., & Miura, Y. (1980). Patterns of static prehension in normal hands. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 34(7), 437–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Sangole, A. P., & Levin, M. F. (2008). Arches of the hand in reach to grasp. Journal of Biomechanics, 41(4), 829–837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Kapandji, I. A. (2007). The physiology of the joints, volume 1: Upper limb (6th ed.). Churchill Livingstone: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Nakamura, K., Patterson, R. M., & Viegas, S. F. (2001). The ligament and skeletal anatomy of the second through fifth carpometacarpal joints and adjacent structures. Journal of Hand Surgery, 26A(6), 1016–1029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Austin, N. M. (2011). The wrist and hand complex. In P. K. Levangie & C. C. Norkin (Eds.), Joint structure and function: A comprehensive analysis (pp. 319–322). Philadelphia: F.A. Davis Co.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Ranney, D. (1995). The hand as a concept: Digital differences and their importance. Clinical Anatomy, 8(4), 281–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Batmanabane, M., & Malathi, S. (1985). Movements at the carpometacarpal and metacarpophalangeal joints of the hand and their effect on the dimensions of the articular ends of the metacarpal bones. The Anatomical Record, 213(1), 102–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. El-Shennawy, M., Nakamura, K., Patterson, R. M., & Viegas, S. F. (2001). Three-dimensional kinematic analysis of the second through fifth carpometacarpal joints. Journal of Hand Surgery, 26A(6), 1030–1035.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Gülke, J., Wachter, N. J., Geyer, T., Schöll, H., Apic, G., & Mentzel, M. (2010). Motion coordination patterns during cylinder grip analyzed with a sensor glove. Journal of Hand Surgery, 35A(5), 797–806.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lee, K. S., & Jung, M. C. (2016). Three-dimensional finger joint angles by hand posture and object properties. Ergonomics, 59(7), 890–900.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Buffi, J. H., Crisco, J. J., & Murray, W. M. (2013). A method for defining carpometacarpal joint kinematics from three-dimensional rotations of the metacarpal bones captured in vivo using computed tomography. Journal of Biomechanics, 46(12), 2104–2108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Wu, G., van Helm, F. C., Veeger, H. E., 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. Journal of Biomechanics, 38(5), 981–992.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Woltring, H. J., Huiskes, R., de Lange, A., & Veldpaus, F. E. (1985). Finite centroid and helical axis estimation from noisy landmark measurements in the study of human joint kinematics. Journal of Biomechanics, 18(5), 379–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Snel, J. G., Venema, H. W., Moojen, T. M., Ritt, J. P., Grimbergen, C. A., & den Heeten, G. J. (2000). Quantitative in vivo analysis of the kinematics of carpal bones from three-dimensional CT images using a deformable surface model and a three-dimensional matching technique. Medical Physics, 27(9), 2037–2047.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Chang, Y. W., Su, F. C., Wu, H. W., & An, K. N. (1999). Optimum length of muscle contraction. Clinical Biomechanics, 14(8), 537–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mechanical and Intelligent Engineering, Utsunomiya University, 7-1-2 Yoto, Utsunomiya, Tochigi, 321-8585, Japan

    Satoshi Shimawaki, Daichi Koya, Masataka Nakabayashi & Katsutoshi Yoshida

  2. Department of Radiology School of Medicine, Jichi Medical University and Hospital, 3311-1 Yakushiji, Shimotsuke, Tochigi, 329-0498, Japan

    Hideharu Sugimoto & Mitsuru Toishi

Authors
  1. Satoshi Shimawaki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daichi Koya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Masataka Nakabayashi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Katsutoshi Yoshida
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hideharu Sugimoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Mitsuru Toishi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Satoshi Shimawaki.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shimawaki, S., Koya, D., Nakabayashi, M. et al. Influence of the Diameter of Grasped Spheres on the Rotation Angle and Axis of the Second to Fifth Carpometacarpal Joints. J. Med. Biol. Eng. 39, 646–652 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40846-018-0448-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40846-018-0448-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation