New Computerized Elbow and Forearm Clinical Scores

Abstract

Background Current elbow clinical scores are scarce with limited comparability between them. None of them are computerized yet. There is no forearm clinical score assessing all anatomical components of forearm disorders such as the Essex-Lopresti injuries. The aims of this paper were to present new computerized elbow and forearm clinical scores.

Methods These new computerized elbow and forearm clinical scores include four clinical criteria: pain, function, active range of motion and muscle strength. To each criterion is given a numerical value among 5 grades. The weight of each criterion is equivalent so that patient's and physician's related scores are equally balanced.

Results Clinical scores components are automatically included into diamond-shape graphs and tables that can be directly exported into PowerPoint presentations for demonstration and comparison purposes.

Discussion These user-friendly updatable clinical elbow and forearm scores are based on four classic clinical criteria, pain, function, motion, and strength that are expressed into grades. They were designed to evaluate any osteoarticular elbow or forearm disorder regardless of the etiology. These scores are open since they may be modified in future versions.

Keywords

clinical Score - elbow - forearm - evaluation - outcomes

Publication History

Received: 09 February 2022

Accepted: 13 June 2022

Article published online:
26 September 2022

• References

• 1 Lizzio VA, Dekhne MS, Makhni EC. Electronic patient-reported outcome collection systems in orthopaedic clinical practice. JBJS Rev 2019; 7 (07) e2
• 2 Zarezadeh A, Mamelson K, Thomas WC, Schoch BS, Wright TW, King JJ. Outcomes of distal humerus fractures: What are we measuring?. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2018; 104 (08) 1253-1258
• 3 Riedel K. Update on the state of outcome measurement in TEA research. identifying a need for consensus. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2013; 95A (14) E97 1-E97 8
• 4 Herzberg G, Burnier M, Nakamura T. A new wrist clinical evaluation score. J Wrist Surg 2018; 7 (02) 109-114
• 5 Turchin DC, Beaton DE, Richards RR. Validity of observer-based aggregate scoring systems as descriptors of elbow pain, function, and disability. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1998; 80 (02) 154-162
• 6 Herzberg G, Berthonnaud E, Bestion A, Dimnet J. Testing of pronation and supination strength in the outpatient setting: a preliminary study. Chir Main 2007; 26 (01) 40-43
• 7 van der Ploeg RJO, Oosterhuis HJ, Reuvekamp J. Measuring muscle strength. J Neurol 1984; 231 (04) 200-203
• 8 Morrey BF. Functional evaluation of the elbow. In: Morrey BF. ed. The Elbow and Its Disorders. 2nd ed.. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1993
• 9 Cusick MC, Bonnaig NS, Azar FM, Mauck BM, Smith RA, Throckmorton TW. Accuracy and reliability of the Mayo Elbow Performance Score. J Hand Surg Am 2014; 39 (06) 1146-1150
• 10 King GJW, Richards RR, Zuckerman JD. et al. A standardized method for assessment of elbow function. Research Committee, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 1999; 8 (04) 351-354
• 11 The B, Reininga IH, El Moumni M, Eygendaal D. Elbow-specific clinical rating systems: extent of established validity, reliability, and responsiveness. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2013; 22 (10) 1380-1394
• 12 Dawson J, Doll H, Boller I. et al. The development and validation of a patient-reported questionnaire to assess outcomes of elbow surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2008; 90 (04) 466-473
• 13 Gilbart MK, Gerber C. Comparison of the subjective shoulder value and the Constant score. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2007; 16 (06) 717-721
• 14 Schneeberger AG, Kösters MC, Steens W. Comparison of the subjective elbow value and the Mayo elbow performance score. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2014; 23 (03) 308-312