Literature DB >> 10968533

Outcome analysis following open rotator cuff repair. Early effectiveness validated using four different shoulder assessment scales.

M Skutek1, R W Fremerey, J Zeichen, U Bosch.   

Abstract

Evaluation of upper extremity function after reconstructive surgery is increasingly important both to predict outcome and for the control of cost-effectiveness. Three validated, self-administered shoulder questionnaires were applied prospectively in 23 otherwise healthy patients with rotator cuff deficiency and correlated to the Constant-Murley Shoulder Score and a visual analogue scale for satisfaction. Seven women and 16 men with combined tears of supraspinatus and infraspinatus (mean age 55.3 +/- 10.5 years, r/l: 14/9, follow-up 57.8 +/- 15.7 weeks) were gathered prospectively and evaluated pre- and postoperatively with the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) Shoulder Index, the Simple Shoulder Test (SST) and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Module (DASH questionnaire). Additionally, a visual analogue scale for satisfaction was employed. All four scores and the visual analogue scale revealed improvement at a statistically significant level (P < 0.01) after surgery. All questionnaires showed a significant correlation with the Constant-Murley Shoulder Score (ASES: r = 0.871, P < 0.01; DASH: r = -0.758, P < 0.01, SST: r = 0.494, P < 0.05, Pearson's correlation coefficient). Taken together, all questionnaires were easy to apply, and reliable evaluation of shoulder function was possible with significant correlation to the Constant-Murley Shoulder Score postoperatively. The SST was easy to apply, and compound outcome analysis was possible with the ASES Shoulder Index and DASH questionnaire. The DASH scale was the most complex evaluation instrument. The Constant-Murley Shoulder Score comprises a physical examination, which is advantageous but restricts the application to the office. For postoperative assessment without the patient having to return to the clinic, the ASES Shoulder Index is preferred because of its good correlation to the Constant-Murley Shoulder Score (r = 0.871) and the visual analogue scale for satisfaction (r = 0.762).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10968533     DOI: 10.1007/s004020000133

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg        ISSN: 0936-8051            Impact factor:   3.067


  14 in total

1.  Arthroscopic reduction and fixation for displaced greater tuberosity fractures using the modified suture-bridge technique.

Authors:  RenLong Li; Ming Cai; Kun Tao
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2017-04-11       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 2.  Functional outcomes assessment in shoulder surgery.

Authors:  James D Wylie; James T Beckmann; Erin Granger; Robert Z Tashjian
Journal:  World J Orthop       Date:  2014-11-18

3.  Translation, cultural adaptation, validity and reliability of the Turkish ASES questionnaire.

Authors:  Derya Celik; Ata Can Atalar; Mehmet Demirhan; Ahmet Dirican
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2012-08-30       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 4.  Use of scoring systems for assessing and reporting the outcome results from shoulder surgery and arthroplasty.

Authors:  Simon Booker; Nawaf Alfahad; Martin Scott; Ben Gooding; W Angus Wallace
Journal:  World J Orthop       Date:  2015-03-18

5.  Acupuncture for pain and dysfunction after neck dissection: results of a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  David G Pfister; Barrie R Cassileth; Gary E Deng; K Simon Yeung; Jennifer S Lee; Donald Garrity; Angel Cronin; Nancy Lee; Dennis Kraus; Ashok R Shaha; Jatin Shah; Andrew J Vickers
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2010-04-20       Impact factor: 44.544

6.  Shoulder activity level varies by diagnosis.

Authors:  Robert H Brophy; Bruce Levy; Samuel Chu; Diane L Dahm; John W Sperling; Robert G Marx
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2009-05-30       Impact factor: 4.342

7.  [Development of a questionnaire based on the Constant-Murley-Score for self-evaluation of shoulder function by patients].

Authors:  D Boehm; N Wollmerstedt; M Doesch; M Handwerker; E Mehling; F Gohlke
Journal:  Unfallchirurg       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 1.000

Review 8.  Clinimetric evaluation of shoulder disability questionnaires: a systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  S D M Bot; C B Terwee; D A W M van der Windt; L M Bouter; J Dekker; H C W de Vet
Journal:  Ann Rheum Dis       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 19.103

9.  Risk factors for readmission and revision surgery following rotator cuff repair.

Authors:  Seth L Sherman; Stephen Lyman; Panagiotis Koulouvaris; Andrew Willis; Robert G Marx
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2008-02-10       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  Meta-analysis of Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes After Arthroscopic Single-Row Versus Double-Row Rotator Cuff Repair.

Authors:  Karen Perser; David Godfrey; Leslie Bisson
Journal:  Sports Health       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 3.843

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.