Constant-Score und Neer-Score

Tingart, Markus; Bäthis, H.; Lefering, Rolf; Bouillon, Bertil; Tiling, Th.

doi:10.1007/s001130170019

Cited by 42 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our study had limitations. We chose the Constant score as our primary outcome measure, but although the score is a widely used international shoulder function assessment tool used for the evaluation of patients who have traumatic injuries or shoulder diseases, the minimum clinically important improvement score has not been established 9,15,16,[23][24][25][26] . We considered the 10-point difference in the Constant score to be a clinically important difference in accordance with the findings of two previous clinical studies 17,25 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This score could not be assessed at baseline because of the fracture. The Constant score is a numerical scale that is widely used to assess shoulder pain, function, and physical performance; the scale ranges from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better overall shoulder functional status 9,15,16,[23][24][25][26] . The Constant score can be divided in two subscores: a subjective subscore measuring pain and the ability to perform activities of daily living (range, 0 to 35) and an objective subscore measuring physical performance (active range of motion and strength) (range, 0 to 65).…”

Section: Outcome Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Immediate Mobilization Compared with Conventional Immobilization for the Impacted Nonoperatively Treated Proximal Humeral Fracture

Lefèvre-Colau

Babinet

Fayad

et al. 2007

The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-American Volume

130

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Outcome Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Immediate Mobilization Compared with Conventional Immobilization for the Impacted Nonoperatively Treated Proximal Humeral Fracture

Lefèvre-Colau

Babinet

Fayad

et al. 2007

The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-American Volume

130

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hierzu werden wichtige Funktionsparameter festgelegt und mit Punktwerten gewichtet. Für ein praktikables Scoring-System werden Validität, einfache Anwendbarkeit, Reproduzierbarkeit und klinische Relevanz gefordert [7]. Im klinischen und akademischen Alltag sind Scores häufig zeitaufwendig und werden vernachlässigt, was eine objektivierbare Verlaufsbeurteilung erschwert.…”

Section: Comparison Of the Subjective Elbow Value With The Dash Mepsunclassified

Comparison of the Subjective Elbow Value with the DASH, MEPS und Morrey Score after Olecranon Fractures

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Olecranon fractures are common injuries that can occur in patients of any age. To assess the postoperative outcome, multiple scoring systems like the DASH, MEPS und Morrey Score have been described. The goal of this paper is to compare the subjective elbow value (SEV) to these commonly used scoring systems. We hypothesized that the SEV would have a high correlation and practicability for the evaluation of elbow function after isolated olecranon injury. Patients and Methods Clinical data of 40 patients were collected and retrospectively analysed. All patients suffered an isolated olecranon fracture and were surgically treated by tension band wiring or plate fixation. In the follow-up examinations the Mayo Score, DASH Score, Morrey Score and SEV were measured for correlation purposes. Results The mean follow-up time was 70.5 ± 45.6 months. The median DASH Score was 9.9 (4.1 – 20.4) and 100 (85 – 100) for the MEPS. The median Morrey Score was 98 (92 – 100). The median SEV was 90% (80 – 95%). The Pearson correlation between the DASH and SEV was −0.85 and 0.80 between the MEPS and the SEV. Conclusions The SEV shows a high correlation to the most commonly used scoring systems for outcome evaluation after elbow injury. It is easy to use and can be seen as a valuable tool to assess patients after olecranon fractures.

show abstract

“…Based on previous studies [36-42] we used a linear regression between the logit transformed results of the DASH-Score, the UCLA-Score and the Neer-Score with the logit transformed Constant-Score. This was performed in accordance to previously published articles [43,44]. …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Complication rates and outcomes stratified by treatment modalities in proximal humeral fractures: a systematic literature review from 1970–2009

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe optimal treatment of complex, displaced proximal humeral fractures is controversial. A systematic literature review of the time period from 1970 to 2009 was conducted. The purpose was to evaluate the clinical success and complications of the available treatment modalities to determine specific treatment recommendations for the different fracture patterns.MethodsThe databases (PubMed/EMBASE) were searched for the time period (01/1970–09/2009). Study quality, treatment modalities, classification, outcome scores and complications of 200 publications including 9377 patients were analyzed. Interventions were compared by analysis of variance with subsequent Tukey’s-test. Complication rates among methods were compared by using Pearson’s-chi-square-test and pairwise comparisons using Fisher’s-two-tailed-exact-test.ResultsHemiarthroplasty, angle-stable plate and non-operative treatment were used for 63% of the follow-up-patients. For 3- and 4-part fractures, patients with hemiarthroplasty [3-Part: 56.4 (lower/upper 95% confidence interval (CI): 43.3-68.7); 4-Part: 49.4 (CI: 42.2-56.7)] received a lower score than different surgical head-preserving methods such as ORIF [3-Part: 82.4 (CI: 76.6-86.9); 4-Part: 83.0 (CI:78.7-86.6)], intramedullary nailing [3-Part: 79.1 (CI:74.0-83.4)] or angle-stable plates [4-Part: 66.4 (CI: 59.7-72.4)].The overall complication rate was 56%. The most common complications were fracture-displacement, malunion, humeral head necrosis and malreduction. The highest complication rates were documented for conventional plate and hemiarthroplasty and for AO-C, AO-A, for 3- and 4-part fractures. Only 25% of the data were reported with detailed classification results and the corresponding outcome scores.DiscussionDespite the large amount of patients included, it is difficult to determine adequate recommendations for the treatment of proximal humeral fractures because a relevant lack of follow-up data impaired subsequent analysis. For displaced 3- and 4-part fractures head-preserving therapy received better outcome scores than hemiarthroplasty. However, a higher number of complications occurred in more complex fractures and when hemiarthroplasty or conventional plate osteosynthesis was performed. Thus, when informing the patient for consent, both the clinical results and the possibly expected complications with a chosen treatment modality should be addressed.

show abstract

Constant-Score und Neer-Score

Cited by 42 publications

References 7 publications

Immediate Mobilization Compared with Conventional Immobilization for the Impacted Nonoperatively Treated Proximal Humeral Fracture

Immediate Mobilization Compared with Conventional Immobilization for the Impacted Nonoperatively Treated Proximal Humeral Fracture

Comparison of the Subjective Elbow Value with the DASH, MEPS und Morrey Score after Olecranon Fractures

Complication rates and outcomes stratified by treatment modalities in proximal humeral fractures: a systematic literature review from 1970–2009

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About