Do Magnets Have the Potential to Serve as a Stabilizer for the Shoulder Joint in Massive Rotator Cuff Tears?: A Biomechanical Cadaveric Study

Background@#Disruption of the rotator cuff muscles compromises concavity compression force, which leads to superior migration of the humeral head and loss of stability. A novel idea of using the magnetic force to achieve shoulder stabilization in massive rotator cuff tears (MRCTs) was considered because the magnets can stabilize two separate entities with an attraction force. This study aimed to investigate the biomechanical effect of the magnetic force on shoulder stabilization in MRCTs. @*Methods@#Seven fresh frozen cadaveric specimens were used with a customized shoulder testing system. Three testing conditions were set up: condition 1, intact rotator cuff without magnets; condition 2, an MRCT without magnets; condition 3, an MRCT with magnets. For each condition, anterior-posterior translation, superior translation, superior migration, and subacromial contact pressure were measured at 0°, 30°, and 60° of abduction. The abduction capability of condition 2 was compared with that of condition 3. @*Results@#The anterior-posterior and superior translations increased in condition 2; however, they decreased compared to condition 2 when the magnets were applied (condition 3) in multiple test positions and loadings (p <0.05). Abduction capability improved significantly in condition 3 compared with that in condition 2, even for less deltoid loading (p < 0.05). @*Conclusions@#The magnet biomechanically played a positive role in stabilizing the shoulder joint and enabled abduction with less deltoid force in MRCTs. However, to ensure that the magnet is clinically applicable as a stabilizer for the shoulder joint, it is necessary to thoroughly verify its safety in the human body and to conduct further research on technical challenges.

Relationship between Locations of Facial Injury and the Use of Bicycle Helmets: A Systematic Review

The aim of this study is to review the protective effect of a bicycle helmet on each facial location systematically. PubMed was searched for articles published before December 12, 2014. The data were summarized, and the odds ratio (OR) between the locations of facial injury was calculated. A statistical analysis was performed with Review Manager (The Nordic Cochrane Centre). Bicycle helmets protect the upper and middle face from serious facial injury but do not protect the lower face. Non-wearers had significantly increased risks of upper facial injury (OR, 2.07; P<0.001) and of middle facial injury (OR, 1.97; P<0.001) as compared to helmet users. In the case of lower facial injury, however, only a slightly increased risk (OR, 1.42; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.67-3.00, P=0.36) was observed. The abovementioned results can be attributed to the fact that a helmet covers the head and forehead but cannot cover the lower face. However, helmets having a chin cap might decrease the risk of lower facial injury.