Table 1 Publications considering rotator cuff repair using various versions of UCLA Shoulder Rating Scale and Constant Score and different cut-off points to translate the score into a qualification.
Article | Study population | Score | Translation to quality | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Tauro 1998[4] | 53 arthroscopic RC repair | Modified UCLA | Good: 36-40 Excellent: 41-45 | 92% good/excellent |
Gartsman 1998[10] | 73 arthroscopic RC repair | UCLA Constant Patient satisfaction as item of the UCLA ASES SF-36 | UCLA: Poor: 0-20 Fair: 21-27 Good: 28-33 Excellent: 34-35 | UCLA: 84% good/excellent Satisfaction: 90% good/excellent |
Burkhart 2001[8] | 59 arthroscopic RC repair | Modified UCLA | Poor: < 29 Good: 29-33 Excellent: 34-35 | 95% good/excellent |
Wolf 2004[5] | 95 arthroscopic RC repair | Modified UCLA | Poor: 0-20 Fair: 21-27 Good: 28-33 Excellent: 34-35 | 94% good/excellent |
Iannotti 1996[11] | 46 open RC repair | Adjusted Constant Score pain and function questionnaire | Poor: < 70 Fair: 70-79 Good: 80-89 Excellent: 90-100 | 88% good/excellent |
Lam 2004[12] | 69 open repair massive RC tears | Constant Score Oxford Shoulder Questionnaire | Poor: < = 50 Fair: 51-65 Good: 66-80 Excellent: > = 81 | Constant: 44% good/excellent |
Boileau 2005[1] | 65 arthroscopic RC repair | Adjusted Constant Score UCLA MRI | No translation described | Constant: 92% good/excellent |