Comparison of reliability,validity and responsiveness of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Shoulder 36 Ver. 1.3 among different diagnoses of shoulder lesions |
| |
| Authors: | Masatoshi Amako Yoshifumi Tsuda Kazuhiro Chiba |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, National Defense Medical College, Saitama, Japan;2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Japan Self-Defense Forces Central Hospital, Tokyo, Japan;3. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, National Defense Medical College Hospital, Saitama, Japan;4. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Minamitama Hospital, Tokyo, Japan;1. Division of Physical Therapy, School of Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health and Social Services, Kanagawa University of Human Services, Yokosuka, Japan;2. Department of Rehabilitation Science, Kobe University Graduate School of Health Sciences, Kobe, Japan;3. Department of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, Tokoha University, Hamamatsu, Japan;4. Department of Rehabilitation, Faculty of Rehabilitation, Hiroshima International University, Higashihiroshima, Japan;5. Department of Physical Therapy, Yamaguchi Allied Health College, Yamaguchi, Japan;6. Department of Rehabilitation, Hohsyasen Daiichi Hospital, Imabari, Japan;7. Research Institute of Health and Welfare, Kibi International University, Takahashi, Japan;8. Graduate School of Integrated Arts and Sciences, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan;1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Hamamatsu University School of Medicine, Hamamatsu, Shizuoka, Japan;2. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Hamamatsu Medical Center, Hamamatsu, Shizuoka, Japan;3. Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Division of Geriatric Musculoskeletal Health, Hamamatsu University School of Medicine, Hamamatsu, Shizuoka, Japan;1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Kitasato University School of Medicine, 1-15-1, Kitasato, Minami-ku, Sagamihara, Kanagawa, 252-0374, Japan;2. Department of Anesthesiology, Kitasato University School of Medicine, 1-15-1, Kitasato, Minami-ku, Sagamihara, Kanagawa, 252-0374, Japan;3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, St. Marianna University School of Medicine, 2-16-1 Sugao, Miyamae-ku, Kawasaki, Kanagawa, 216-8511, Japan;1. Faculty of Health Sciences, Hokkaido University, Hokkaido, Japan;2. Department of Rehabilitation, Sapporo Maruyama Orthopedic Hospital, Hokkaido, Japan;3. Department of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Health and Welfare, Prefectural University of Hiroshima, Hiroshima, Japan;4. Department of Orthopedic, Sapporo Maruyama Orthopedic Hospital, Hokkaido, Japan |
| |
| Abstract: | BackgroundShoulder 36 (Sh-36) is an original quality of life measure for shoulder lesions with high reliability and validity; however, in some cases, especially in those with a Bankart lesion, we observed no improvement in Sh-36 during the postoperative follow-up. Sh-36 may be less effective for a certain shoulder lesion. This study aimed to compare the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of Sh-36 among different representative diagnoses of shoulder lesions.MethodsSh-36 and the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) were measured in 192 patients with a Bankart lesion (Bankart group), rotator cuff tear (Cuff group), and SLAP lesion (SLAP group) who underwent arthroscopic surgery. Both measures were evaluated before surgery, and at 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, and 24 months postoperatively, and reliability, validity, and responsiveness of Sh-36 and the DASH were compared among the three groups.ResultsSignificant postoperative improvement was observed in the three groups (p < 0.0001) within 9 months. No marked improvement was observed after 9 months in the Bankart and SLAP groups due to the ceiling effect; however, most domains of Sh-36 increased continuously in the Cuff group during the whole follow-up period. Reliability and construct validity were sufficient in all the groups. The longitudinal validity was sufficient in most domains for the three groups; however, the standardized response mean in the Bankart group was lower than that in other two groups, indicating low responsiveness in this group because of the ceiling effect.ConclusionsSh-36 was a valid and reliable instrument in patients who have undergone arthroscopic shoulder surgery, especially for patient with a rotator cuff tear with high responsiveness. However, Sh-36 had lower standard response mean representing lower responsiveness in the Bankart group due to the ceiling effect and may not be ideal for longitudinal follow-up in patients with a Bankart lesion. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
