Literature DB >> 19559368

Not all Rowe scores are the same! Which Rowe score do you use?

Kai-Uwe Jensen1, Genio Bongaerts, Raphael Bruhn, Silke Schneider.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Rowe score is an internationally recognized scoring system for the postoperative assessment of Bankart repairs; however, there are 4 different Rowe score versions. All 4 versions are used in parallel and results are sometimes published without any information about the Rowe score version used. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to assess the correlation and agreement of the various Rowe score versions.
METHOD: Sixty-two patients were scheduled for follow-up examination after arthroscopic Bankart repair. All 4 Rowe score versions were used. The results of all Rowe scores were compared and correlation and agreement evaluated. RESULT: The evaluation revealed significant differences. The highest mean score was observed in the 1988 Rowe score (Ø 88.7 points) and the lowest mean score in the 1981 Rowe score (Ø 73.6 points).
CONCLUSION: Not all Rowe scores are the same! Therefore, the used Rowe score should always be indicated. It would be desirable to establish one single Rowe score. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3; Diagnostic study.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19559368     DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2009.02.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg        ISSN: 1058-2746            Impact factor:   3.019


  8 in total

1.  Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the rowe score for portuguese.

Authors:  Freddy Beretta Marcondes; Rodrigo Antunes de Vasconcelos; Adriano Marchetto; André Luis Lugnani de Andrade; Américo Zoppi; Maurício Etchebehere
Journal:  Acta Ortop Bras       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 0.513

2.  MRI graduation of osseous reaction and drill hole consolidation after arthroscopic Bankart repair with PLLA anchors and the clinical relevance.

Authors:  T Stein; A P Mehling; M Ulmer; C Reck; T Efe; R Hoffmann; A Jäger; F Welsch
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2011-11-02       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 3.  Outcome Measures After Shoulder Stabilization in the Athletic Population: A Systematic Review of Clinical and Patient-Reported Metrics.

Authors:  Edel Fanning; Natasha Maher; Ann Cools; Eanna C Falvey
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2020-09-16

4.  Functional outcome and quality of life after rehabilitation for voluntary posterior shoulder dislocation: a prospective blinded cohort study.

Authors:  Giovanni Merolla; Elisa De Santis; Ann M J Cools; Giuseppe Porcellini
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2014-06-03

5.  Posterior open wedge glenoid osteotomy provides reliable results in young patients with increased glenoid retroversion and posterior shoulder instability.

Authors:  Lucca Lacheta; Taran S P Singh; Jean M Hovsepian; Sepp Braun; Andreas B Imhoff; Jonas Pogorzelski
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2018-10-29       Impact factor: 4.342

6.  Posterior shoulder dislocation with associated reverse Hill-Sachs lesion: treatment options and functional outcome after a 5-year follow up.

Authors:  Markus Guehring; Simon Lambert; Ulrich Stoeckle; Patrick Ziegler
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2017-11-13       Impact factor: 2.362

7.  The Oxford Shoulder Instability Score; validation in Dutch and first-time assessment of its smallest detectable change.

Authors:  Just A van der Linde; Derk A van Kampen; Loes W A H van Beers; Derek F P van Deurzen; Caroline B Terwee; W Jaap Willems
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2015-09-17       Impact factor: 2.359

8.  Measurement properties of the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability index in Dutch patients with shoulder instability.

Authors:  Just A van der Linde; W Jaap Willems; Derk A van Kampen; Loes W A H van Beers; Derek F P van Deurzen; Caroline B Terwee
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2014-06-20       Impact factor: 2.362

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.