Skip to main content
Instrument 10Coupled
Pre-op instrument · shoulder girdle

Everyone is taught 2:1. In the series it comes from, no increment was.

Scapulohumeral rhythm has an overall ratio close to two to one, and that number describes almost nothing you will actually measure. The scapula supplies about two and a half per cent of the first thirty degrees of elevation and about fifty-three per cent of the arc from ninety to a hundred and twenty. In the series those figures come from, the ratio between thirty and ninety degrees ranged from 1.64 to 3.76 and was never once equal to two to one.

Signature
2.5% → 52.7%
Scapular share of the first 30° against the 90–120° segment. There is no such thing as 2:1.
Fig. 1 · Expected scapular share, by arc segment
0204060what 2:1 would predict — 33.3%2.5%0–30°30%30–60°38%60–90°52.7%90–120°50%120–180°
The dashed line is what a two-to-one ratio predicts everywhere: 33.3%. No segment sits on it. The hatched bar is beyond the measured range — drawn differently so it cannot be mistaken for data.
Total elevation, then elevation with the scapula held · the difference is the girdle’s share
The point

This is the safe-zone error, at a much smaller scale.

The thesis on this site argues that orthopaedics repeatedly took a population average and applied it to individuals as though the two were the same thing — a neutral mechanical axis, a fixed cup safe zone, a neutral sagittal target. Scapulohumeral rhythm is the same mistake in a much smaller and much more everyday form, and it is taught in every shoulder examination.

Arc segmentScapular shareWhat is happening
0–30°≈ 2.5%The setting phase. The scapula barely participates and a 2:1 expectation here is simply the wrong expectation
30–60°≈ 30%The scapula begins to contribute
60–90°≈ 38%Contribution rising
90–120°≈ 52.7%The scapula now supplies more than half of this segment
120–180°≈ 50%**Beyond the measured range. Extrapolated, and flagged as such throughout
What that means practically. A scapular share is only interpretable against the part of the arc it was measured in. This instrument therefore asks which arc you assessed and compares the share to that segment, rather than to one ratio. That is the only change, and it is the same change the knee, hip and spine each made for themselves.
The envelope · elevation, then elevation with the scapula held

The adjacent segment here is the scapulothoracic articulation.

The glenohumeral page on this site asks an attrition question about the same shoulder — how far the glenoid has eroded from its premorbid surface. This page asks a coupled question about the same anatomy. Both are legitimate and they belong to different families, which is a point the thesis had to be corrected on.

The two measurements

Total humerothoracic elevation, then the same with the scapula manually stabilised.
140°
What the arm does.
70°
What the joint does. The difference is the girdle.
165°
The only total-arc reference that belongs to this patient.

Which arc you assessed

Because the expected share depends entirely on this.
0°
140°
Expected scapular share for this arc
—
—
Tier C

—

What the girdle is actually supplying
—

Log this girdle →The glenoid instrument →
Log this girdle

Put the first row in.

Sending this stores your name, email, practice, role and note, with the measurements above, this page’s address and the address of the page that sent you here if your browser shares it, with SolvingHealth, the publisher of this site. Nothing is promised in return: no studio access and no reply.

Do not enter patient details: no names, dates of birth, record numbers or anything else that identifies a patient, in the note or anywhere on this page. Stored for calibration research, not as a clinical record.