Concordance of shoulder strength assessments using a spring balance and isometric dynamometer in patients before and after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair.
Constant Score
Isometric dynamometer
Rotator cuff repair
Shoulder
Spring balance
Strength assessment
Journal
JSES international
ISSN: 2666-6383
Titre abrégé: JSES Int
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101763461
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Nov 2023
Nov 2023
Historique:
medline:
16
11
2023
pubmed:
16
11
2023
entrez:
16
11
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Shoulder strength is an essential assessment to monitor the outcome of treatment interventions. Isometric strength assessment in the Constant Score (CS) was initially measured with a cable tensiometer or spring balance (SB). Some authors have questioned the validity of this strength assessment and the resulting CS. The purpose of this study was to investigate the concordance of strength measurements using an unsecured SB vs. isometric dynamometer and outline the impact of these methods on the CS. In the context of routine clinical examination as well as participation in a Swiss national cohort study, shoulder strength was measured to calculate baseline (before surgery) and 6-month postoperative CS in adult rotator cuff tear patients who had undergone primary arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Measurements of each of the operated and contralateral shoulders were made per patient routinely using an unsecured SB and study-specific using an isometric dynamometer in patients with the shoulder at 90° abduction in the scapular plane. Absolute and change values of strength and CS data were presented in scatter plots and assessed using concordance correlation coefficients (CCCs) and Bland-Altman plots. Between June 2020 and October 2021, baseline strength measurements from the operated shoulder of 78 patients ranged from 0.0 to 13.6 kg with a CCC of 0.64 ( Absolute and change values in shoulder strength assessments using an unsecured SB and isometric dynamometer are fairly concordant with mean differences of less than 1 kg between methods. With the variability of strength differences among patients, interpretation of these values for individual patients may be challenging. Nonetheless, unsecured SB and dynamometer methods share only slight and clinically unimportant differences that can provide similar group mean values for use in research along with the calculation of the CS.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Shoulder strength is an essential assessment to monitor the outcome of treatment interventions. Isometric strength assessment in the Constant Score (CS) was initially measured with a cable tensiometer or spring balance (SB). Some authors have questioned the validity of this strength assessment and the resulting CS. The purpose of this study was to investigate the concordance of strength measurements using an unsecured SB vs. isometric dynamometer and outline the impact of these methods on the CS.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
In the context of routine clinical examination as well as participation in a Swiss national cohort study, shoulder strength was measured to calculate baseline (before surgery) and 6-month postoperative CS in adult rotator cuff tear patients who had undergone primary arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Measurements of each of the operated and contralateral shoulders were made per patient routinely using an unsecured SB and study-specific using an isometric dynamometer in patients with the shoulder at 90° abduction in the scapular plane. Absolute and change values of strength and CS data were presented in scatter plots and assessed using concordance correlation coefficients (CCCs) and Bland-Altman plots.
Results
UNASSIGNED
Between June 2020 and October 2021, baseline strength measurements from the operated shoulder of 78 patients ranged from 0.0 to 13.6 kg with a CCC of 0.64 (
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
Absolute and change values in shoulder strength assessments using an unsecured SB and isometric dynamometer are fairly concordant with mean differences of less than 1 kg between methods. With the variability of strength differences among patients, interpretation of these values for individual patients may be challenging. Nonetheless, unsecured SB and dynamometer methods share only slight and clinically unimportant differences that can provide similar group mean values for use in research along with the calculation of the CS.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37969520
doi: 10.1016/j.jseint.2023.06.017
pii: S2666-6383(23)00163-9
pmc: PMC10638569
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
2349-2355Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Author(s).
Références
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1997 Jul;79(4):695-6
pubmed: 9250770
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1990 Dec;72(10):1562-74
pubmed: 2254369
J Sport Rehabil. 2021 Jan 19;30(6):965-968
pubmed: 33465764
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005 May-Jun;14(3):273-8
pubmed: 15889026
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1997 Mar-Apr;6(2):125-30
pubmed: 9144599
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1994 Sep;3(5):327-45
pubmed: 22959796
JSES Open Access. 2018 Mar 02;2(2):141-143
pubmed: 30675584
J Clin Epidemiol. 2008 Apr;61(4):344-9
pubmed: 18313558
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1998 Mar-Apr;7(2):116-21
pubmed: 9593088
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1996 Jan-Feb;5(1):18-24
pubmed: 8919438
J Sports Sci. 2019 Aug;37(15):1787-1793
pubmed: 30897030
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1996 Nov-Dec;5(6):449-57
pubmed: 8981270
Biometrics. 1989 Mar;45(1):255-68
pubmed: 2720055
J Biomed Inform. 2009 Apr;42(2):377-81
pubmed: 18929686
Lancet. 1986 Feb 8;1(8476):307-10
pubmed: 2868172
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007 May-Jun;16(3):285-9
pubmed: 17321154
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013 Dec;22(12):1650-5
pubmed: 23850308
BMJ Open. 2021 Apr 22;11(4):e045702
pubmed: 33888530
J Phys Ther Sci. 2016 Nov;28(11):3054-3059
pubmed: 27942118
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008 Mar-Apr;17(2):355-61
pubmed: 18218327
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987 Jan;(214):160-4
pubmed: 3791738