Advertisement

Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery

, Volume 132, Issue 6, pp 831–837 | Cite as

Development of a score set to measure function and quality of life in patients suffering from elbow pathology

  • I. S. L. Liem
  • C. KollingEmail author
  • M. Marks
  • R. G. H. H. Nelissen
  • J. Goldhahn
Orthopaedic Outcome Assessment

Abstract

Introduction

Daily function plays an important role in the quality of life for patients suffering from pathology of the upper extremity. The recovery of functions of daily living determines the success or failure of the treatment for the patient. The goal of this study was to establish and validate a score set measuring quality of life, and objective and subjective function in general elbow pathologies.

Methods

A literature review was performed, in order to find a patient-based elbow specific questionnaire. The score set was tested and validated in a cross-sectional setting.

Results

The patient-rated elbow evaluation (PREE) was chosen as the patient-based elbow specific questionnaire. For measuring general health and subjective arm function, the short form-36 mental health (SF-36 MH) and the shortened disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand questionnaire (quick DASH) were chosen, respectively. To measure objective function, several clinical tests were implemented. The score set was tested in 66 patients, of which 56.1% had function restrictions due to pain. The correlation between the PREE-function and quick DASH was found to be the highest (r = 0.74*). Between the PREE and quick DASH, the correlation was good (r = 0.70*) and between the PREE-pain and quick DASH, the correlation was moderate (r = 0.58*). The lowest correlation (r = 0.18) was found between the PREE and SF-36 MH (*p < 0.01).

Conclusion

General health, subjective and objective function can be measured in elbow pathology patients using a score set containing the SF-36 MH, quick DASH, PREE, and several clinical tests. Further testing of the score set needs to be executed in a prospective study.

Keywords

Elbow pathology Patient-reported outcome Validity PREE Quick DASH 

Notes

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Reville RT, Neuhauser FW, Bhattacharya J, Martin C (2002) Comparing severity of impairment for different permanent upper extremity musculoskeletal injuries. J Occup Rehabil 12(3):205–221PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Simmen BR, Angst F, Schwyzer HK, Herren DB, Pap G, Aeschlimann A, Goldhahn J (2009) A concept for comprehensively measuring health, function and quality of life following orthopaedic interventions of the upper extremity. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 129(1):113–118. doi: 10.1007/s00402-008-0718-3 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Angst F, Goldhahn J, John M, Herren DB, Simmen BR (2005) Comparison of rheumatic and post-traumatic elbow joints after total elbow arthroplasty. Comprehensive and specific evaluation of clinical picture, function, and quality of life. Orthopade 34(8):794–800. doi: 10.1007/s00132-005-0786-9 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Garratt A, Schmidt L, Mackintosh A, Fitzpatrick R (2002) Quality of life measurement: bibliographic study of patient assessed health outcome measures. BMJ 324(7351):1417PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gartland JJ (1988) Orthopaedic clinical research. Deficiencies in experimental design and determinations of outcome. J Bone Joint Surg Am 70(9):1357–1364PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, Bouter LM, de Vet HC (2010) The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res 19(4):539–549. doi: 10.1007/s11136-010-9606-8 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kirkley A, Griffin S, Dainty K (2003) Scoring systems for the functional assessment of the shoulder. Arthroscopy 19(10):1109–1120. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2003.10.030 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    World Health Organization (2001) International classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF). http://www.who.int/classifications/icf/en
  9. 9.
    Armstrong AD, MacDermid JC, Chinchalkar S, Stevens RS, King GJW (1998) Reliability of range-of-motion measurement in the elbow and forearm. J Shouder Elbow Surg 7:573–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Compston A (2010) Aids to the investigation of peripheral nerve injuries. Medical Research Council: Nerve Injuries Research Committee. His Majesty’s Stationery Office: 1942. By Michael O’Brien for the Guarantors of Brain. Brain 133 (10):2838–2844Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    RJOvd Ploeg, Oosterhuis HJGH, Reuvekamp J (1984) Measuring muscle strength. J Neurol 231:200–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Roles NC, Maudsley RH (1972) Radial tunnel syndrome: resistant tennis elbow as a nerve entrapment. J Bone Joint Surg 54B(3):499–508Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Geoffroy P, Yaffe MJ, Rohan I (1994) Diagnosing and treating lateral epicondylitis. Can Fam Phys 40:73–78Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fairbank SM, Corlett RJ (2002) The role of the extensor digitorum communis muscle in lateral epicondylitis. J Hand Surg 27B(5):405–409Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Altman DG, Bland JM (1994) Diagnostic tests. 1: sensitivity and specificity. BMJ 308(6943):1552PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dawson J, Doll H, Boller I, Fitzpatrick R, Little C, Rees J, Jenkinson C, Carr AJ (2008) The development and validation of a patient-reported questionnaire to assess outcomes of elbow surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br 90(4):466–473. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.90B4.20290 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    John M, Angst F, Awiszus F, King GJ, MacDermid JC, Simmen BR (2010) The American shoulder and elbow surgeons elbow questionnaire: cross-cultural adaptation into German and evaluation of its psychometric properties. J Hand Ther 23(3):301–313. doi: 10.1016/j.jht.2010.03.001 quiz 314PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    John M, Angst F, Pap G, Junge A, Mannion AF (2007) Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability and validity of the patient rated elbow evaluation (PREE) for German-speaking patients. Clin Exp Rheumatol 25(2):195–205. doi: 2027[pii] PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    MacDermid JC (2001) Outcome evaluation in patients with elbow pathology: issues in instrument development and evaluation. J Hand Ther 14(2):105–114PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Newcomer K, Martinezsilvestrini J, Schaefer M, Gay R, Arendt K (2005) Sensitivity of the patient-rated forearm evaluation questionnaire in lateral epicondylitis. J Hand Ther 18(4):400–406. doi: 10.1197/j.jht.2005.07.001 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rompe JD, Overend TJ, MacDermid JC (2007) Validation of the patient-rated tennis elbow evaluation questionnaire. J Hand Ther 20(1):3–10. doi: 10.1197/j.jht.2006.10.003 quiz 11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Angst F, John M, Pap G, Mannion AF, Herren DB, Flury M, Aeschlimann A, Schwyzer HK, Simmen BR (2005) Comprehensive assessment of clinical outcome and quality of life after total elbow arthroplasty. Arthritis Rheum 53(1):73–82. doi: 10.1002/art.20911 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    de Boer YA, Hazes JM, Winia PC, Brand R, Rozing PM (2001) Comparative responsiveness of four elbow scoring instruments in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 28(12):2616–2623PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    de Boer YA, van den Ende CH, Eygendaal D, Jolie IM, Hazes JM, Rozing PM (1999) Clinical reliability and validity of elbow functional assessment in rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 26(9):1909–1917PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dawson J, Doll H, Boller I, Fitzpatrick R, Little C, Rees J, Carr A (2008) Comparative responsiveness and minimal change for the Oxford elbow score following surgery. Qual Life Res 17(10):1257–1267. doi: 10.1007/s11136-008-9409-3 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gummesson C, Ward MM, Atroshi I (2006) The shortened disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand questionnaire (quickDASH): validity and reliability based on responses within the full-length DASH. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 7(1):44. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-7-44 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Beaton DE (2005) Development of the quickDASH: comparison of three item-reduction approaches. J Bone Joint Surg 87(5):1038–1046. doi: 10.2106/jbjs.d.02060 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Werle S, Goldhahn J, Drerup S, Simmen BR, Sprott H, Herren DB (2009) Age- and gender-specific normative data of grip and pinch strength in a healthy adult Swiss population. J Hand Surg Eur Vol 34(1):76–84. doi: 10.1177/1753193408096763 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Shiri R, Viikari-Juntura E (2011) Lateral and medial epicondylitis: role of occupational factors. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 25(1):43–57. doi: 10.1016/j.berh.2011.01.013 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • I. S. L. Liem
    • 1
    • 2
  • C. Kolling
    • 1
    Email author
  • M. Marks
    • 1
    • 2
  • R. G. H. H. Nelissen
    • 2
  • J. Goldhahn
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Research and Development, Upper ExtremitiesSchulthess KlinikZurichSwitzerland
  2. 2.Department of OrthopedicsLeiden University Medical CenterLeidenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations