For two decades, many scores, questionnaires, and rating systems have been used to evaluate the functional outcome of children with an upper extremity fracture (UEF). However, only a few of these were created specifically for children, and many assess only elbow function. In the absence of any published review on this topic, we set out to identify and categorize different scores used to evaluate the clinical and functional outcomes of surgically treated pediatric UEFs. A literature search was performed, and 38 studies were identified. The scores used more often were the shortened version of the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire and the Mayo Elbow Performance Score/Index. In a lower number of studies, authors used other scoring systems, including the Mayo Wrist Score, the Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation, the Patient-Rated Elbow Evaluation, the Métaizeau functional scoring system, the Oxford Elbow Score, the Price and Flynn criteria, the Hardacre Functional Score, the Neer Shoulder Score, the Constant-Murley Shoulder Score, the Modified Orthopedic Trauma Association Score, the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36, and the Pediatric Outcomes Data Collection Instrument. Some specific pediatric scoring systems to evaluate the functional outcome of children with a UEF have been suggested, but a single tool that is valid and reliable for skeletally immature patients of all ages is not yet available. Further studies are needed to identify specific pediatric measurements to increase validity, responsiveness, sensitivity, and interpretability of upper limb functional outcome scores in common clinical practice.

Review of pediatric functional outcomes measures used to evaluate surgical management in pediatric patients with an upper extremity fracture

Pavone V
2022-01-01

Abstract

For two decades, many scores, questionnaires, and rating systems have been used to evaluate the functional outcome of children with an upper extremity fracture (UEF). However, only a few of these were created specifically for children, and many assess only elbow function. In the absence of any published review on this topic, we set out to identify and categorize different scores used to evaluate the clinical and functional outcomes of surgically treated pediatric UEFs. A literature search was performed, and 38 studies were identified. The scores used more often were the shortened version of the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire and the Mayo Elbow Performance Score/Index. In a lower number of studies, authors used other scoring systems, including the Mayo Wrist Score, the Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation, the Patient-Rated Elbow Evaluation, the Métaizeau functional scoring system, the Oxford Elbow Score, the Price and Flynn criteria, the Hardacre Functional Score, the Neer Shoulder Score, the Constant-Murley Shoulder Score, the Modified Orthopedic Trauma Association Score, the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36, and the Pediatric Outcomes Data Collection Instrument. Some specific pediatric scoring systems to evaluate the functional outcome of children with a UEF have been suggested, but a single tool that is valid and reliable for skeletally immature patients of all ages is not yet available. Further studies are needed to identify specific pediatric measurements to increase validity, responsiveness, sensitivity, and interpretability of upper limb functional outcome scores in common clinical practice.
2022
children
clinical rating systems
outcome assessment
patient-reported outcome measure
upper extremity
Child
Hand
Humans
Upper Extremity
Arm Injuries
Elbow Joint
Fractures, Bone
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Review of pediatric functional outcomes.pdf

solo gestori archivio

Tipologia: Versione Editoriale (PDF)
Licenza: NON PUBBLICO - Accesso privato/ristretto
Dimensione 5.44 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
5.44 MB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11769/543625
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 2
  • Scopus 4
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 5
social impact