Advertisement

Correlation of Function with Deformity in Dupuytren Disease: The Condition-Specific Southampton Scoring Scheme Outperforms the Generic QuickDASH

  • David WarwickEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

We correlated angular deformity with two different functional schemes (Southampton Dupuytren’s Scoring Scheme (SDSS) and QuickDASH) in 298 cords in 237 patients immediately prior to injection with collagenase Clostridium histolyticum. We found that QuickDASH did not correlate with deformity whereas the SDSS had modest correlation.

Keywords

Deformity Patient-related outcome measure QuickDASH Correlation Southampton Dupuytren’s Scoring Scheme 

Notes

Acknowledgements and Conflict of Interest

The author acknowledges the help of Dr. Daniel Graham who prepared the database upon which these correlations are derived and Dr. Peter Worsley who performed the statistical analysis.

Figures 26.3 and 26.4 are reproduced with permission from the Journal of Hand Surgery European, in which they were published in a letter to the editor (J Hand Surg Eur 2015:40:544).

The author has no conflicts of interest to declare.

References

  1. Beaton DE, Katz JN, Wright JG (2005) Development of the Quick-DASH: comparison of three item reduction approaches. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87:1038–1046CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Beaudreuil J et al (2011) Unité Rhumatologique des Affections de la Main (URAM) scale: development and validation of a tool to assess Dupuytren's disease-specific disability. Arthritis Care Res 10:1448–1455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Budd HR, Larson D, Chojnowski A, Shepstone L (2011) The QuickDASH score: a patient-reported outcome measure for Dupuytren's surgery. J Hand Ther 24:15–20CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Degreef I, Vererfve PB, De Smet L (2009) Effect of severity of Dupuytren contracture on disability. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg 43:41–42CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Engstrand C, Borén L, Liedberg GM (2009) Evaluation of activity limitation and digital extension in Dupuytren's contracture three months after fasciectomy and hand therapy interventions. J Hand Ther 22:21–27CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Mohan A, Vadher J, Ismail H, Warwick D (2014) The southampton Dupuytren’s scoring scheme. J Plast Surg Hand Surg 48:28–33CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Rodrigues JN, Zhang W, Scammell BE, Davis TRC (2015) What patients want from the treatment of Dupuytren’s disease- is the URAM scale relevant. J Hand Surg Eur Vol 40:150–154CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Warwick D, Graham D, Worsley P (2015) New insights into the immediate outcome of collagenase injections for Dupuytren’s contracture. J Hand Surg (Eur). (On line doi: 10.1177/1753193415600670)
  9. Zyluk A, Jagielski W (2007) The effect of the severity of the Dupuytren's contracture on the function of the hand before and after surgery. J Hand Surg Eur Vol 32:326–329CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hand Unit, Orthopaedic DepartmentUniversity Hospital Southampton, University of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK

Personalised recommendations