Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 1/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Research article

Evaluation of the Constant score: which is the method to assess the objective strength?

Authors: Patrick Ziegler, Luise Kühle, Ulrich Stöckle, Elke Wintermeyer, Laura E. Stollhof, Christoph Ihle, Christian Bahrs

Published in: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The Constant score (CS) is one of the most frequently applied tools for the assessment of the shoulder joint. However, evaluation of strength is not standardized leading to potential bias when comparing different studies.

Methods

Seventy-six patients with fractures of the proximal humerus undergoing open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) were assessed using standardized CS strength measurements at the deltoid muscle insertion and at the wrist in three different arm positions. Variation coefficients were evaluated for each patient and position.

Results

Forty women (57%) and 36 men (43%) were examined 96 months in mean after ORIF. We could state a maximum of 105.3 N difference if measurements were performed at the wrist or the insertion of the deltoid muscle in 90° forward flexion on the injured arm (167.9 ± 83.1 N; 62.6 ± 29.4 N). The lowest variation coefficient of the three performed measurements could be stated at the deltoid muscle insertion in a 90° abduction position in the scapula plane (6.94 ± 5.5).

Conclusion

Following our study results, different positions of force measurement can change the total CS by a whole category (e.g. “very good” to “good”). We recommend performing the measurement at the insertion of the deltoid muscle in a 90° abduction position in the scapula plane. Otherwise, even in the non-injured, it is hard to reach a “normal” shoulder function, based on the CS. When using the CS as outcome parameter, authors must give detailed information about the force measuring and use an exact measuring device.
Literature
8.
go back to reference Ban I, Troelsen A, Christiansen DH, Svendsen SW, Kristensen MT. Standardised test protocol (Constant score) for evaluation of functionality in patients with shoulder disorders. Dan Med J. 2013;60:A4608.PubMed Ban I, Troelsen A, Christiansen DH, Svendsen SW, Kristensen MT. Standardised test protocol (Constant score) for evaluation of functionality in patients with shoulder disorders. Dan Med J. 2013;60:A4608.PubMed
10.
go back to reference Constant CR, Murley AH. A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987:160–4. Constant CR, Murley AH. A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987:160–4.
14.
go back to reference Constant CR. Assessment of shoulder function. Der Orthopade. 1991;20:289–94.PubMed Constant CR. Assessment of shoulder function. Der Orthopade. 1991;20:289–94.PubMed
19.
go back to reference Murray MP, Gore DR, Gardner GM, Mollinger LA. Shoulder motion and muscle strength of normal men and women in two age groups. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1985:268–73. Murray MP, Gore DR, Gardner GM, Mollinger LA. Shoulder motion and muscle strength of normal men and women in two age groups. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1985:268–73.
20.
go back to reference Gerber C, Hersche O, Farron A. Isolated rupture of the subscapularis tendon. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1996;78:1015–23.CrossRef Gerber C, Hersche O, Farron A. Isolated rupture of the subscapularis tendon. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1996;78:1015–23.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Evaluation of the Constant score: which is the method to assess the objective strength?
Authors
Patrick Ziegler
Luise Kühle
Ulrich Stöckle
Elke Wintermeyer
Laura E. Stollhof
Christoph Ihle
Christian Bahrs
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2474
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-019-2795-6

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 1/2019 Go to the issue