Self-assessment of Elbow Mobility as a Reliable Method in the Postoperative Follow-up Examination of Radial Head Fractures

Abstract

Background

Sufficient follow-up of fractures is often difficult, due to age-related, health-related or geographical reasons. Self-assessment of the patient’s functional outcome could be an alternative to a personal medical examination. There is a lack of validated questionnaires to record these parameters for elbow injuries. The aim of the study was to validate the patient’s self-assessment of the range of motion following surgical treatment of complex radial head fractures.

Methods

50 patients (42% women) with a mean age of 49.7 ± 13.8 years (range 25–82 years) with a surgically treated radial head fracture (Mason III or IV) were examined, 39.6 ± 23.3 months postoperatively. The fracture was treated with radial head reconstruction (60%) or radial head prosthesis (40%). The follow-up examination included the assessment of elbow mobility using a questionnaire (Elbow Motion Assessment Score) and physical examination using a goniometer. In addition, quality of life was assessed using the SF-36 Health Survey. The agreement of the mobility was recorded as a percentage using Spearman’s correlation.

Results

Exact agreement between examiner and patient was achieved at 54% in flexion, 40% in extension, 86% in pronation and 54% in supination. The median deviations in agreement were 10° in extension and flexion and 20° in pronation and supination. The correlations were r = 0.550 (flexion), r = 0.841 (extension), r = 0.808 (pronation) and r = 0.754 (supination). Patients who agreed with the examiner on the movements achieved a higher score in the SF-36 Health Survey than patients who did not agree with the examiner (50.5 to 54.1 vs. 40.0 to 45.5).

Conclusion

The survey of the range of motion by the patient using a questionnaire showed a high level of agreement with the measurement by an objective examiner. Such self-assessment can therefore be seen as a suitable, cost-effective alternative in the follow-up examination of surgically treated radial head fractures.

Keywords

questionnaire - elbow - radial head fracture - self-assessment - follow-up

Publication History

Received: 12 November 2023

Accepted after revision: 23 April 2025

Article published online:
20 May 2025

• References

• 1 Carita E, Donadelli A, Cugola L. et al. Radial head prosthesis: results overview. Musculoskelet Surg 2017; 101: 197-204
• 2 Li N, Chen S. Open reduction and internal-fixation versus radial head replacement in treatment of Mason type III radial head fractures. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2014; 24: 851-855
• 3 Moghaddam A, Raven TF, Dremel E. et al. Outcome of Radial Head Arthroplasty in Comminuted Radial Head Fractures: Short and Midterm Results. Trauma Mon 2016; 21: e20201
• 4 Ünlü MC, Güven MF, Aslan L. et al. Comparison of the functional results of radial head resection and prosthesis for irreparable mason type-III fracture. Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg 2018; 24: 359-363
• 5 Iordens GI, Van Lieshout EM, Schep NW. et al. Early mobilisation versus plaster immobilisation of simple elbow dislocations: results of the FuncSiE multicentre randomised clinical trial. Br J Sports Med 2017; 51: 531-538
• 6 Van Tunen B, Van Lieshout EMM, Mader K. et al. Complications and range of motion of patients with an elbow dislocation treated with a hinged external fixator: a retrospective cohort study. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 2022; 48: 4889-4896
• 7 de Haan J, den Hartog D, Tuinebreijer WE. et al. Functional treatment versus plaster for simple elbow dislocations (FuncSiE): a randomized trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2010; 11: 263
• 8 Schep NW, De Haan J, Iordens GI. et al. A hinged external fixator for complex elbow dislocations: a multicenter prospective cohort study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2011; 12: 130
• 9 Swensen SJ, Tyagi V, Uquillas C. et al. Maximizing outcomes in the treatment of radial head fractures. J Orthop Traumatol 2019; 20: 15
• 10 Longo UG, Franceschi F, Loppini M. et al. Rating systems for evaluation of the elbow. Br Med Bull 2008; 87: 131-161
• 11 Schnetzke M, Schuler S, Keil H. et al. Development and validation of a novel questionnaire for self-determination of the range of motion of wrist and elbow. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2016; 17: 312
• 12 Wong JSH, Cheung KMC. Impact of COVID-19 on Orthopaedic and Trauma Service: An Epidemiological Study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2020; 102: e80
• 13 Ware jr JE. SF-36 health survey update. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000; 25: 3130-3139
• 14 Ware jr JE. , Gandek B. Overview of the SF-36 Health Survey and the International Quality of Life Assessment (IQOLA) Project. J Clin Epidemiol 1998; 51: 903-912
• 15 Bullinger M. German translation and psychometric testing of the SF-36 Health Survey: preliminary results from the IQOLA Project. International Quality of Life Assessment. Soc Sci Med 1995; 41: 1359-1366
• 16 Ellert U, Kurth BM. [Health related quality of life in adults in Germany: results of the German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Adults (DEGS1)]. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz 2013; 56: 643-649
• 17 Borgbjerg J, Madsen F, Odgaard A. Patient Self-Assessed Passive Range of Motion of the Knee Cannot Replace Health Professional Measurements. J Knee Surg 2017; 30: 829-834
• 18 Carter CW, Levine WN, Kleweno CP. et al. Assessment of shoulder range of motion: introduction of a novel patient self-assessment tool. Arthroscopy 2008; 24: 712-717
• 19 Pattabhiraman NK, Barnes SC, Singh HP. Agreement between patient-based and clinician-based assessment of the shoulder. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2018; 27: e59-e67
• 20 Smith AM, Barnes SA, Sperling JW. et al. Patient and physician-assessed shoulder function after arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006; 88: 508-513
• 21 Uribe B, El Bitar Y, Wolf BR. et al. Agreement between patient self-assessment and physician assessment of shoulder range of motion. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2016; 25: 1649-1654
• 22 Yang JS, Keener JD, Yamaguchi K. et al. Reliability of patient self-assessment of shoulder range of motion and strength after shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2015; 24: 1-10
• 23 Godfrey J, Hamman R, Lowenstein S. et al. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the simple shoulder test: psychometric properties by age and injury type. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2007; 16: 260-267
• 24 van den Bosch SC, van Dalen D, Meinders M. et al. Outpatient Video Visits During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Cross-Sectional Survey Study of Patients’ Experiences and Characteristics. J Med Internet Res 2024; 26: e49058
• 25 Westra I, Niessen FB. Implementing Real-Time Video Consultation in Plastic Surgery. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2015; 39: 783-790
• 26 de Koning R, Egiz A, Kotecha J. et al. Survey Fatigue During the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Analysis of Neurosurgery Survey Response Rates. Front Surg 2021; 8: 690680
• 27 Imlach F, McKinlay E, Middleton L. et al. Telehealth consultations in general practice during a pandemic lockdown: survey and interviews on patient experiences and preferences. BMC Fam Pract 2020; 21: 269