Background: Scapular kinesia is an important component of glenohumeral rhythm and shoulder stability. No studies have evaluated scapular dyskinesis and its relationship to shoulder proprioception in patients who have undergone arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR). Purpose: To investigate scapular dyskinesis, proprioception, and functional level after ABR. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: This study included 13 male patients who underwent ABR (ABR group; mean age, 30 years; range, 24-36 years) and 13 sex- and age-matched healthy individuals (control group). The age, height, weight, and dominant side of all participants were collected. Scapular dyskinesis was evaluated using the lateral scapular slide test and the scapular dyskinesis test; proprioception was measured by the active angle reproduction test using a smartphone goniometer application, and functional level was assessed using the upper-quarter Y-balance test for dynamic stability as well as the Rowe score and Walch-Duplay score for quality of life and return to activities of daily living. Results: The presence of static scapular dyskinesis in the neutral position, at 45° of abduction, and at 90° of abduction as well as the presence of dynamic scapular dyskinesis was higher in the ABR group compared with the control group ( P ≤ .04 for all). Shoulder joint position sense (absolute error) at 40° and 100° of shoulder elevation and shoulder functional level according to the Rowe score were worse in the ABR patients compared with the healthy controls ( P ≤ .02 for all). Dynamic scapular dyskinesis was negatively related to shoulder joint position sense at 40° of shoulder elevation ( r = –0.64; P = .01). Static scapular movement as measured on the lateral scapular slide test was moderately related to the Rowe score ( r = 0.58; P = .03). Conclusion: Scapular kinematics and proprioception should be evaluated after ABR. Treatment approaches to improve scapular control and proprioceptive sense should be included in the rehabilitation program for patients after ABR.

IntroductionAdult patients with ADHD may go unrecognized. This can result in psychosocial and functional decline.ObjectivesTo investigate the use of objective testing, with an eye-tracker device in the diagnosis of adult patients with ADHD.MethodsCase control study. Inclusion criteria were aged 18–65, minimum 5 years of education and literate in English. Exclusion criteria were visual impairment, amnesia and learning difficulties. ADHD was diagnosed with Conners’ adult ADHD diagnostic interview (group A, n = 15) and were matched for gender and age against normal controls (group B, n = 33). Participants completed four computer-based tasks while their eye movements were recorded. The tests included (i) Stroop effect test, (ii) Stroop effect test with visual aid, (iii) perceptual selectivity test and (iv) Saccadic interference. accuracy (%) and response time (msec) for tests (i–iii) measured while for test (iv), saccade count, average saccade amplitude and average fixation duration.ResultsStroop test accuracy showed a statistically significant difference between group A and group B (P = 0.004). Stroop response time also showed a statistically significant difference between the two groups (t = 3.228, df: 46, P = 0.001). For test (ii), there was a significant difference for response time (t = 2.326, df: 46, P = 0.024) but not for accuracy. For test (iii), the results were statistically significant for accuracy; (t = 2.682, df: 46, P = 0.010) and for response time (t = 4.028, df: 46, P = 0.001). There were no significant differences in the saccadic interference test.ConclusionAdults with ADHD have a longer response time and perform less accurately than controls. Thus, these data demonstrate that there is a use for objective tests (tests i–iii) in the diagnosis of adult ADHD.Disclosure of interestThe authors have not supplied their declaration of competing interest.