Cargando…

Evaluation of the Constant score: which is the method to assess the objective strength?

BACKGROUND: The Constant score (CS) is one of the most frequently applied tools for the assessment of the shoulder joint. However, evaluation of strength is not standardized leading to potential bias when comparing different studies. METHODS: Seventy-six patients with fractures of the proximal humer...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ziegler, Patrick, Kühle, Luise, Stöckle, Ulrich, Wintermeyer, Elke, Stollhof, Laura E., Ihle, Christoph, Bahrs, Christian
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6727481/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31484528
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-019-2795-6
_version_ 1783449258383376384
author Ziegler, Patrick
Kühle, Luise
Stöckle, Ulrich
Wintermeyer, Elke
Stollhof, Laura E.
Ihle, Christoph
Bahrs, Christian
author_facet Ziegler, Patrick
Kühle, Luise
Stöckle, Ulrich
Wintermeyer, Elke
Stollhof, Laura E.
Ihle, Christoph
Bahrs, Christian
author_sort Ziegler, Patrick
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The Constant score (CS) is one of the most frequently applied tools for the assessment of the shoulder joint. However, evaluation of strength is not standardized leading to potential bias when comparing different studies. METHODS: Seventy-six patients with fractures of the proximal humerus undergoing open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) were assessed using standardized CS strength measurements at the deltoid muscle insertion and at the wrist in three different arm positions. Variation coefficients were evaluated for each patient and position. RESULTS: Forty women (57%) and 36 men (43%) were examined 96 months in mean after ORIF. We could state a maximum of 105.3 N difference if measurements were performed at the wrist or the insertion of the deltoid muscle in 90° forward flexion on the injured arm (167.9 ± 83.1 N; 62.6 ± 29.4 N). The lowest variation coefficient of the three performed measurements could be stated at the deltoid muscle insertion in a 90° abduction position in the scapula plane (6.94 ± 5.5). CONCLUSION: Following our study results, different positions of force measurement can change the total CS by a whole category (e.g. “very good” to “good”). We recommend performing the measurement at the insertion of the deltoid muscle in a 90° abduction position in the scapula plane. Otherwise, even in the non-injured, it is hard to reach a “normal” shoulder function, based on the CS. When using the CS as outcome parameter, authors must give detailed information about the force measuring and use an exact measuring device.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6727481
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-67274812019-09-12 Evaluation of the Constant score: which is the method to assess the objective strength? Ziegler, Patrick Kühle, Luise Stöckle, Ulrich Wintermeyer, Elke Stollhof, Laura E. Ihle, Christoph Bahrs, Christian BMC Musculoskelet Disord Research Article BACKGROUND: The Constant score (CS) is one of the most frequently applied tools for the assessment of the shoulder joint. However, evaluation of strength is not standardized leading to potential bias when comparing different studies. METHODS: Seventy-six patients with fractures of the proximal humerus undergoing open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) were assessed using standardized CS strength measurements at the deltoid muscle insertion and at the wrist in three different arm positions. Variation coefficients were evaluated for each patient and position. RESULTS: Forty women (57%) and 36 men (43%) were examined 96 months in mean after ORIF. We could state a maximum of 105.3 N difference if measurements were performed at the wrist or the insertion of the deltoid muscle in 90° forward flexion on the injured arm (167.9 ± 83.1 N; 62.6 ± 29.4 N). The lowest variation coefficient of the three performed measurements could be stated at the deltoid muscle insertion in a 90° abduction position in the scapula plane (6.94 ± 5.5). CONCLUSION: Following our study results, different positions of force measurement can change the total CS by a whole category (e.g. “very good” to “good”). We recommend performing the measurement at the insertion of the deltoid muscle in a 90° abduction position in the scapula plane. Otherwise, even in the non-injured, it is hard to reach a “normal” shoulder function, based on the CS. When using the CS as outcome parameter, authors must give detailed information about the force measuring and use an exact measuring device. BioMed Central 2019-09-04 /pmc/articles/PMC6727481/ /pubmed/31484528 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-019-2795-6 Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Ziegler, Patrick
Kühle, Luise
Stöckle, Ulrich
Wintermeyer, Elke
Stollhof, Laura E.
Ihle, Christoph
Bahrs, Christian
Evaluation of the Constant score: which is the method to assess the objective strength?
title Evaluation of the Constant score: which is the method to assess the objective strength?
title_full Evaluation of the Constant score: which is the method to assess the objective strength?
title_fullStr Evaluation of the Constant score: which is the method to assess the objective strength?
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of the Constant score: which is the method to assess the objective strength?
title_short Evaluation of the Constant score: which is the method to assess the objective strength?
title_sort evaluation of the constant score: which is the method to assess the objective strength?
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6727481/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31484528
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-019-2795-6
work_keys_str_mv AT zieglerpatrick evaluationoftheconstantscorewhichisthemethodtoassesstheobjectivestrength
AT kuhleluise evaluationoftheconstantscorewhichisthemethodtoassesstheobjectivestrength
AT stockleulrich evaluationoftheconstantscorewhichisthemethodtoassesstheobjectivestrength
AT wintermeyerelke evaluationoftheconstantscorewhichisthemethodtoassesstheobjectivestrength
AT stollhoflaurae evaluationoftheconstantscorewhichisthemethodtoassesstheobjectivestrength
AT ihlechristoph evaluationoftheconstantscorewhichisthemethodtoassesstheobjectivestrength
AT bahrschristian evaluationoftheconstantscorewhichisthemethodtoassesstheobjectivestrength