What Factors Are Associated With Disability After Upper Extremity Injuries? A Systematic Review

Abstruse Musculoskeletal disorders substantially impacts concrete activity, mental land, and quality of life (QOL). By and large, comprehensive assessment of upper limb function requires measures of impairment or disability too as health-related quality of life. A growing number of outcome instrument take been introduced to evaluate upper limb part and disability, and these measures tin can be categorized as patient- or clinician-based, and equally condition specific or full general health-related QOL evaluations. The upper limb outcome instruments reviewed in this commodity appraise different aspect of upper limb conditions, and the measures are affected by differences in cultural, psychological, and gender aspect of illness perception and behavior. Therefore, physician should select/interpret the outcome instruments addressing their master purpose of research. Data about regional instruments for upper limb condition and health-related QOL in upper limb disorder may assist the states in decision-making for treatment priority or in estimation of the handling outcomes. Keywords: Upper limb, Outcome musical instrument, Impairment, Disability, Quality of life INTRODUCTION Musculoskeletal disorders are amidst the almost frequently occurring chronic atmospheric condition that affect the general population and essentially impact physical activity, mental land, and quality of life (QOL) (Bingefors and Isacson, 2004; Lawrence et al., 1998). Musculoskeletal disorders go more prevalent with age, and they are the leading cause of disability (Lawrence et al., 2008; Picavet and Hazes, 2003). The management goals of patients with musculoskeletal disorders are no longer express to reducing signs and symptoms merely at present includes increasing function (Dieppe, 2004). At that place is a current trend to enhance general well-being or QOL, which involves integrating patient-centric perspectives and comprehensive assessment of intervention outcomes (Furner et al., 2011; Gruber et al., 2010; Menz et al., 2010). A growing number of outcome instruments have been introduced to evaluate upper limb function and disability (Oh et al., 2009; Romeo et al., 1996). These instruments range from objective measures, such as range of motion (ROM) (Constant and Murley, 1987) or muscle forcefulness (Constant and Murley, 1987; Roh et al., 2012e), to more than subjective measures, such every bit patient satisfaction (Monnin and Perneger, 2002) or quality of life (Goldhahn et al., 2008; van de Ven-Stevens et al., 2009). Impairments such as muscle weakness or limitation in range of motion may have a comprehensive touch on daily life. For instance, grip strength has a disquisitional part during the performance of daily activities, and is considered an important measure of recovery after upper extremity injuries and for the evaluation of treatment outcomes. However, the degree of satisfaction regarding office or disability differs beyond patients, and this inter-patient variability in self-assessment is important to consider in the clinical evaluation of upper limb office. In clinical studies, recent trend has been to movement toward patient-based (patient-centric) instruments and away from clinician-based (functioning based) ones, the alphabetic character of which is more susceptible to observer bias and mistake and does not represent illness/disability experience of patients themselves (Harvie et al., 2005). Furthermore, outcome assessments include measures of impairment or disability besides as measures of full general health-related QOL, in order to assess the full impact of trouble related to a certain upper limb condition. There are many outcome instruments available for assessment of upper limb functions. These are not standardized or unclear. The purpose of this paper is to review outcome measures of upper limb function, which can be categorized as patient- or clinician-based, and as condition specific or general health related QOL evaluations. In addition, we discuss clinical research considerations in selection/interpretation of instruments for upper limb functions. The upper limb outcome instruments reviewed in this article include the Michigan hand questionnaire (MHQ), the Patient-rated wrist evaluation score (PRWE), the Constant-Murley score, the simple shoulder exam (SST) the Oxford shoulder score (OSS,) the disability of arm, shoulder and manus questionnaire (DASH), and the short class- 36 wellness survey (SF-36). OUTCOME INSTRUMENTS IN PATIENT WITH UPPER LIMB Status On ane paw, condition-specific instruments of musculoskeletal disorders measure symptoms and disabilities relevant to specific conditions and are useful for assessing responses to treatments. On the other manus, general health condition instruments measure multiple aspects of health, including physical function, mental health, and social function. Although generic measures may not be as sensitive to the disability experienced by patients, general wellness status measurements generally correlate with status-specific instruments that address musculoskeletal manifestation (Ostendorf et al., 2004; SooHoo et al., 2002). This implies that musculoskeletal complaints influence general health status and that a considerable proportion of variation in general wellness status can exist attributed to regional musculoskeletal disability. Hand & Wrist The Michigan manus questionnaire (MHQ) is a mitt specific and patient-based subjective assessment (Chung et al., 1998). The questionnaire assesses a patient'southward perception to function, pain, satisfaction, and aesthetic appearance. The original MHQ has been used with almost all types of hand disorders, and its reliability, validity, and responsiveness has been validated for a range of upper extremity weather, such as carpal tunnel syndrome, distal radius fractures, and rheumatoid arthritis (Chatterjee and Price, 2009; Kotsis et al., 2007; Roh et al., 2011; Waljee et al., 2010). The questionnaire itself consists of 57 items, and distinguishes between left and right hands over six domains, including overall hand office, activities of daily living, pain, work functioning, aesthetics, and patient satisfaction with function. Each domain is scored from 0 to 100, past which a lower score denotes worse disability salve except for the pain domain for which the opposite holds truthful. The final score is obtained by averaging the six scores after reversing the hurting score. Patient-rated wrist evaluation score (PRWE) is a reliable and valid tool for quantifying patient-rated wrist hurting and inability in the setting of distal radius fractures treatment (MacDermid et al., 1998). The questionnaire is completed by the patient themselves and consists of two domains, pain and function. There are v items in the pain domain and x items in the function domain. The response to each item is scored on a scale of 0–10. The pain score is the sum of five items, with the worst possible score of l, and the disability (function) score is the sum of x items divided by 2. Shoulder The Constant-Murley questionnaire is a shoulder specific and clinician-based assessment with acceptable reliability and validity (Gilbart and Gerber, 2007), and is the most widely used questionnaire in Europe (Kirkley et al., 2003). This instrument consists of iv function items and 5 concrete examination items. Equally the measurements are fundamentally dissimilar, the functional and physical examinations are scored separately, as opposed to being combined for a total score. The simple shoulder test (SST) is a patient-based measure (Lippitt, 1993). Information technology is a quick, subjective questionnaire composed of 12 questions with yes or no response. It was reported to exist reliable, valid, and responsive (Godfrey et al., 2007). For each question, a patient indicates whether he or she is able to perform the indicated activeness or not. The sum total score ranges from 0 (worst) to 12 (best) for shoulder function. Oxford shoulder score (OSS) (Dawson et al., 1996) is a shoulder-specific, patient-based questionnaire composed of 12 questions for assessing pain perception and quality of life in patients with symptomatic pathologies of the shoulder. Each question on the questionnaire is scored 0–4, with four representing the best. Thus, it produces overall scores that range from 0 to 48, with 48 existence the all-time result. The Oxford shoulder score is piece of cake to consummate, imposes very little burden to the patient, and provides reliable, valid, and responsive data about patient perceptions of shoulder bug (Christie et al., 2009; Kirkley et al., 2003). Information technology is an internationally recognized orthopedic assessment musical instrument, is available in certain European languages. Its validity has been demonstrated through cross-cultural adaptation processes. (Berendes et al., 2010, Huber et al., 2004; Murena et al., 2010; Roh et al., 2012c) Whole upper extremity The inability of arm, shoulder and hand (Nuance) is a cocky-administered, upper-extremity specific questionnaire that consists of 30 questions (Hudak et al., 1996). It includes physical functions, symptoms, and social function, work, slumber, and confidence items. Five responses are provided per question and are scored from 1 (without difficulty or no symptom) to five (unable to engage in activity or very severe symptom). Thus, the DASH provides the all-time possible score of 0 and the worst possible score of 100. The DASH evaluation is user-friendly, reliable, and valid for a range of upper-extremity disorders (Gummesson et al., 2003; Szabo, 2001), and is the best instrument for evaluating patients with disorders involving multiple upper limb joints. Generic health status measure The short form - 36 (SF-36) health survey is the most widely used, patient-reported generic health status measure (Ware and Sherbourne, 1992). The 36 items in the questionnaire are grouped past eight wellness subscales which are designed to represent the World Health System definition of wellness: concrete office (PF), office limitations due to physical problems (RP), bodily hurting (BP), general health (GH), vitality (VT), social function (SF), role limitations due to emotional bug (RE), and mental wellness (MH). These eight scales can be combined into ii summary measures that provide overall estimates of physical health (physical component summary [PCS]) and mental health (mental component summary [MCS]). The SF36V2 uses norm-based scores, and the its summary scores utilise the sum of viii subscale z-scores weighted by cistron score coefficients (Ware, 2000). The SF-36 is commonly used to stand for wide aspects of health for questionnaire validation and reportedly is more responsive than other general health instruments for musculoskeletal disorders (Beaton et al., 1996). CONSIDERATIONS IN THE SELECTION/Estimation OF INSTRUMENTS To evaluate upper limb harm or disability, reliable and validated outcome measures should take into business relationship all aspects of a patient's life that may exist afflicted by the presence of the disability or impairment. Nearly investigators support the apply of condition specific measures along with generic measures. The old include items relevant and sensitive to the disorder being studied, and the latter let for comparisons between conditions and may be sensitive to unexpected consequences of a disorder. Investigators should select a proper musical instrument with established validity and reliability. All things existence equal, the most responsive instrument available should be used in society to minimize the sample size for the proposed study. Therefore, additional information is required to understand how sensitive these instruments are to clinical change in role experienced by patients who have issues over time. Psychologic distress, such as pain-induced anxiety or depression, is increasingly recognized every bit contributing to pain and disability perception in several musculoskeletal disorders (Kim et al., 2011; Roh et al., 2012d). Low has been reported to be highly prevalent in the elderly and consistently contributes to symptom severity in some musculoskeletal disorders (Roh et al., 2012b; Rosemann et al., 2007; Salaffi et al., 1991) Furthermore, subjective factors, such as pain and depression, take been reported to have greater influences when disability is measured with respect to functions related to the entire upper extremity, i.e. Nuance scores, rather than with respect to a more specific regional site (Lindenhovius et al., 2008). A large variability in DASH scores in upper-extremity disorders was constitute to arise from psychosocial rather than physical factors (Ring et al., 2006). Female subjects are known to report higher level of musculoskeletal pain and disability, although objective findings, such as range of motion and abduction forcefulness, did not differ betwixt the genders (Roh et al., 2012a; Roh et al., 2012d). Musculoskeletal pain or disability has been reported to be both more prevalent (Leveille et al., 2005) and worse in women (Bingefors and Isacson, 2004), which could be due to a higher physical vulnerability (Wijnhoven et al., 2006) or sensitivity to hurting (Wolfe et al., 1995) in the gender. This gender-specific upshot was reported not to be confined to a specific concrete subscale but rather involved all physical components of SF-36 and Dash. Functional assessment is also influenced past the prevalence of degenerative musculoskeletal disorders such equally osteoarthritis and rotator cuff disease. In individuals older than 65 year, osteoarthritis of the knees and hands and rotator cuff diseases are the almost prevalent causes of musculoskeletal hurting. A loftier prevalence of these degenerative musculoskeletal diseases has been previously demonstrated (Picavet and Hazes, 2003), and prevalence of concurrent upper and lower extremity pain in those older than 65 yr is estimated to be greater than 40% (Scudds and Robertson, 2000). CONCLUSIONS Much progress has been made in validation of functional assessment of upper limb conditions, and currently at that place is a growing number of instruments for each of the main groups of upper limb atmospheric condition. The upper limb instruments reviewed in this commodity allow for assessments of various aspects of functional problems related to upper limb weather. Furthermore, functional outcome measures of upper limb are affected by differences in cultural, psychological, and gender aspects of illness perception and beliefs. Therefore, comprehensive cess of upper limb role requires measures of damage or disability also as generic measures of health-related QOL. Standardized assessments of regional musculoskeletal disabilities and general wellness status may assistance clinician in treatment determination-making and in interpretation of treatment outcomes of upper limb conditions. Clinicians and researchers should exist enlightened of the characteristics of each outcome instrument and select the upper limb issue instruments which most appropriately address the primary purpose of a given inquiry. Notes REFERENCES Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Hogg-Johnson SA. Measuring health in injured workers: a cantankerous-sectional comparing of five generic health status instruments in workers with musculoskeletal injuries. Am J Ind Med. 1996;29:618–631. Berendes T, Airplane pilot P, Willems J, Verburg H, te Slaa R. Validation of the Dutch version of the Oxford Shoulder Score. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010;xix:829–836. Bingefors Grand, Isacson D. Epidemiology, co-morbidity, and touch on health-related quality of life of self-reported headache and musculoskeletal pain--a gender perspective. Eur J Pain. 2004;8:435–450. Chatterjee JS, Cost PE. Comparative responsiveness of the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire and the Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire after carpal tunnel release. J Hand Surg Am. 2009;34:273–280. Christie A, Hagen KB, Mowinckel P, Dagfinrud H. Methodological properties of six shoulder inability measures in patients with rheumatic diseases referred for shoulder surgery. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009;18:89–95. Chung KC, Pillsbury MS, Walters MR, Hayward RA. Reliability and validity testing of the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire. J Hand Surg Am. 1998;23:575–587. Constant CR, Murley AH. A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987;160–164. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about shoulder surgery. J Os Joint Surg Br. 1996;78:593–600. Dieppe PA. Human relationship between symptoms and structural change in osteoarthritis. what are the important targets for osteoarthritis therapy? J Rheumatol Suppl. 2004;lxx:fifty–53. Furner SE, Hootman JM, Helmick CG, Bolen J, Zack MM. Health-related quality of life of US adults with arthritis: analysis of data from the behavioral risk factor surveillance system, 2003, 2005, and 2007. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2011;63:788–799. Gilbart MK, Gerber C. Comparison of the subjective shoulder value and the Constant score. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007;16:717–721. Godfrey J, Hamman R, Lowenstein S, Briggs Chiliad, Kocher M. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the simple shoulder test: psychometric properties by historic period and injury type. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007;16:260–267. Goldhahn J, Angst F, Simmen BR. What counts: event assessment after distal radius fractures in aged patients. J Orthop Trauma. 2008;22:S126–130. Gruber Thousand, Zacherl M, Giessauf C, Glehr M, Fuerst F, Liebmann W, Gruber K, Bernhardt GA. Quality of life after volar plate fixation of articular fractures of the distal part of the radius. J Os Joint Surg Am. 2010;92:1170–1178. Gummesson C, Atroshi I, Ekdahl C. The disabilities of the arm, shoulder and paw (Dash) consequence questionnaire: longitudinal construct validity and measuring self-rated wellness change later on surgery. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2003;4:11 Harvie P, Pollard TC, Chennagiri RJ, Carr AJ. The use of outcome scores in surgery of the shoulder. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87:151–154. Huber Westward, Hofstaetter JG, Hanslik-Schnabel B, Posch M, Wurnig C. The German version of the Oxford Shoulder Score--cross-cultural adaptation and validation. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2004;124:531–536. Hudak PL, Amadio PC, Bombardier C. Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the Nuance (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand) [corrected]. The Upper Extremity Collaborative Group (UECG). Am J Ind Med. 1996;29:602–608. Kim KW, Han JW, Cho HJ, Chang CB, Park JH, Lee JJ, Lee SB, Seong SC, Kim TK. Association between comorbid depression and osteoarthritis symptom severity in patients with knee osteoarthritis. J Os Joint Surg Am. 2011;93:556–563. Kirkley A, Griffin Southward, Dainty Chiliad. Scoring systems for the functional assessment of the shoulder. Arthroscopy. 2003;19:1109–1120. Kotsis SV, Lau FH, Chung KC. Responsiveness of the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire and physical measurements in issue studies of distal radius fracture treatment. J Hand Surg Am. 2007;32:84–90. Lawrence RC, Felson DT, Helmick CG, Arnold LM, Choi H, Deyo RA, Gabriel S, Hirsch R, Hochberg MC, Hunder GG, Jordan JM, Katz JN, Kremers HM, Wolfe F. Estimates of the prevalence of arthritis and other rheumatic weather in the United States. Office Two. Arthritis Rheum. 2008;58:26–35. Lawrence RC, Helmick CG, Arnett FC, Deyo RA, Felson DT, Giannini EH, Heyse SP, Hirsch R, Hochberg MC, Hunder GG, Liang MH, Pillemer SR, Steen VD, Wolfe F. Estimates of the prevalence of arthritis and selected musculoskeletal disorders in the U.s.. Arthritis Rheum. 1998;41:778–799. Leveille SG, Zhang Y, McMullen W, Kelly-Hayes Grand, Felson DT. Sexual activity differences in musculoskeletal pain in older adults. Pain. 2005;116:332–338. Lindenhovius AL, Buijze GA, Kloen P, Ring DC. Correspondence between perceived disability and objective concrete impairment later on elbow trauma. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;xc:2090–2097. Lippitt SB, Matsen FA. 1993. A practical tool for evaluating function: the Simple Shoulder Test. Masten FA, Fu FH, Hawkins RJ, editors. The Shoulder: A Balance of Mobility and Stability. Rosemont, Sick: American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons; MacDermid JC, Turgeon T, Richards RS, Beadle Grand, Roth JH. Patient rating of wrist pain and inability: a reliable and valid measurement tool. J Orthop Trauma. 1998;12:577–586. Menz HB, Roddy E, Thomas E, Croft PR. Impact of hallux valgus severity on general and human foot-specific health-related quality of life. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2010. Monnin D, Perneger Television. Calibration to measure patient satisfaction with concrete therapy. Phys Ther. 2002;82:682–691. Murena L, Vulcano Due east, D'Angelo F, Monti M, Cherubino P. Italian cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Oxford Shoulder Score. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010;19:335–341. Oh JH, Jo KH, Kim WS, Gong HS, Han SG, Kim YH. Comparative evaluation of the measurement properties of various shoulder issue instruments. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37:1161–1168. Ostendorf Thousand, van Stel HF, Buskens Due east, Schrijvers AJ, Marting LN, Verbout AJ, Dhert WJ. Patient-reported outcome in total hip replacement. A com parison of five instruments of health status. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004;86:801–808. Picavet HS, Hazes JM. Prevalence of self reported musculoskeletal diseases is high. Ann Rheum Dis. 2003;62:644–650. Ring D, Kadzielski J, Fabian L, Zurakowski D, Malhotra LR, Jupiter JB. Self-reported upper extremity health condition correlates with depression. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88:1983–1988. Roh YH, Kim KW, Paik NJ, Kim TK, Gong HS. How much are upper or lower extremity disabilities associated with general wellness condition in the elderly? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012a;470:3246–3252. Roh YH, Lee BK, Noh JH, Oh JH, Gong HS, Baek GH. Effect of depressive symptoms on perceived disability in patients with chronic shoulder pain. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2012b;132:1251–1257. Roh YH, Noh JH, Kim W, Oh JH, Gong HS, Baek GH. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Korean version of the Oxford shoulder score. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2012c;132:93–99. Roh YH, Noh JH, Oh JH, Baek GH, Gong HS. To what caste practice shoulder outcome instruments reflect patients' psychologic distress? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012d;470:3470–3477. Roh YH, Yang BK, Noh JH, Baek GH, Song CH, Gong HS. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Korean version of the Michigan hand questionnaire. J Mitt Surg Am. 2011;36:1497–1503. Roh YH, Yi SR, Noh JH, Lee SY, Oh JH, Gong HS, Baek GH. Intra-articular corticosteroid injection in diabetic patients with adhesive capsulitis: a randomized controlled trial. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012e;twenty:1947–1952. Romeo AA, Bach BR Jr, O'Halloran KL. Scoring systems for shoulder conditions. Am J Sports Med. 1996;24:472–476. Rosemann T, Backenstrass M, Joest Thou, Rosemann A, Szecsenyi J, Laux Yard. Predictors of depression in a sample of i,021 primary care patients with osteoarthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2007;57:415–422. Salaffi F, Cavalieri F, Nolli 1000, Ferraccioli G. Analysis of disability in knee osteoarthritis. Relationship with age and psychological variables but not with radiographic score. J Rheumatol. 1991;eighteen:1581–1586. Scudds RJ, Robertson JM. Hurting factors associated with physical inability in a sample of customs-dwelling senior citizens. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2000;55:M393–399. SooHoo NF, McDonald AP, Seiler JG, McGillivary GR 3rd. Evaluation of the construct validity of the DASH questionnaire by correlation to the SF-36. J Hand Surg Am. 2002;27:537–541. Szabo RM. Outcomes assessment in mitt surgery: when are they meaningful? J Hand Surg Am. 2001;26:993–1002. van de Ven-Stevens LA, Munneke M, Terwee CB, Spauwen PH, van der Linde H. Clinimetric properties of instruments to assess activities in patients with manus injury: a systematic review of the literature. Curvation Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;90:151–169. Waljee JF, Chung KC, Kim HM, Burns Lead, Shush FD, Wilgis EF, Fob DA. Validity and responsiveness of the Michigan Hand Questionnaire in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a multicenter, international study. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2010;62:1569–1577. Ware JE Jr. SF-36 wellness survey update. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25:3130–3139. Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-particular curt-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Intendance. 1992;thirty:473–483. Wijnhoven HA, de Vet HC, Picavet HS. Prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders is systematically higher in women than in men. Clin J Hurting. 2006;22:717–724. Wolfe F, Ross Thou, Anderson J, Russell IJ. Aspects of fibromyalgia in the general population: sex, pain threshold, and fibromyalgia symptoms. J Rheumatol. 1995;22:151–156.

colemanneand1972.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.e-jer.org/journal/view.php?number=2013600062

Share this post