Dergiler / Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica / 2021 / Cilt: 55 - Sayı: 5

Translation, cultural adaptation, and validation of the Turkish-specific acromioclavicular score

Sayfa
406–411
Yayın Tarihi
2022-10-10
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Conclusion: The Turkish version of the SACS is a reliable and valid tool to measure outcomes after various types of acromioclavicular joint pathologies.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Objective: The Specific Acromioclavicular Score (SACS) is a questionnaire that assesses functional outcomes for Acromioclavicular Joint (ACJ) pathologies.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Seventy-eight patients were included in this study (67 with acute or chronic AC instability and 11 with symptomatic ACJ arthritis).
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Conclusion: The Turkish version of the SACS is a reliable and valid tool to measure outcomes after various types of acromioclavicular joint pathologies.
🔬Tür:Uygulamalı Anket & Alan Araştırması
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

Objective: The Specific Acromioclavicular Score (SACS) is a questionnaire that assesses functional outcomes for Acromioclavicular Joint (ACJ) pathologies. The aim of this study was to evaluate the ease of use, reliability, and validity of the Turkish-translated and culturally adapted form of the SACS. Methods: The SACS was translated into Turkish according to Beaton’s recommendations. Seventy-eight patients were included in this study (67 with acute or chronic AC instability and 11 with symptomatic ACJ arthritis). The mean interval between test and retest was 13.2 ± 4.6 days. The reliability of the tools was measured with the intraclass correlation coefficient. External validity was evaluated using correlations between the SACS, Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS), Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) Shoulder score, and the SF-36 version 2 (SF-36v2). Floor and ceiling effects were also analyzed. Results: The mean time to complete the Turkish SACS was 3 min 18 s (range, 1 min 40 s to 7 min 9 s). The test–retest reliability was excellent (ICC, 0.988). There was a very good correlation between SACS, OSS, SPADI, and ASES scores (r = 0.645, 0.645, and −0.682, respectively, P 0.05). No floor or ceiling effects were detected. Conclusion: The Turkish version of the SACS is a reliable and valid tool to measure outcomes after various types of acromioclavicular joint pathologies.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Oğuzkaya, S., Mısır, A., Kızkapan, T. B., Uzun, E., Özçamdallı, M., Önder, M. (2022). Translation, cultural adaptation, and validation of the Turkish-specific acromioclavicular score. Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica, Cilt: 55 - Sayı: 5, 406–411. https://ajindex.com/articles/420353

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (12)

  1. Mall NA, Foley E, Chalmers PN, Cole BJ, Romeo AA, Bach BRJr. Degenerative joint disease of the acromioclavicular joint: A review. Am J Sports Med. 2013
  2. 41 (11):2684-2692. 10.1177/0363546513485359 2. Cook JB, Tokish JM. Surgical management of acromioclavicular dislocations. Clin Sports Med. 2014
  3. 33(4):721-737. 10.1016/j.csm.2014.06.009 3. Muench LN, Kia C, Jerliu A, et al. Functional and radiographic outcomes after anatomic coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction for type iii/v acromioclavicular joint injuries. Orthop J Sports Med. 2019
  4. 7(11):2325967119884539. 10. 1177/2325967119884539 4. Granville-Chapman J, Torrance E, Rashid A, Funk L. The Rockwood classification in acute acromioclavicular joint injury does not correlate with symptoms. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2018
  5. 26(2):2309499018777886. 10.1177/ 2309499018777886 5. Wang YC, M AY, Y UW, Wang H. Surgical treatment of acute Rockwood III acromioclavicular dislocations—Comparative study between two flip-button techniques. Sci Rep. 2020
  6. 10(1):4447. 10.1038/s41598-020-61488-z 6. Nascimento AT, Claudio GK. Functional and radiological evaluation of acute acromioclavicular dislocation treated with anchors without eyelet: Comparison with other techniques. Rev Bras Ortop. 2016
  7. 51(5):561-568. 10.1016/j.rboe. 2016.08.015 7. Abat F, Gich I, Natera L, Besalduch M, Sarasquete J. Clinical factors that affect perceived quality of life in arthroscopic reconstruction for acromioclavicular joint dislocation. Rev Esp Cir Ortop Traumatol. 2018
  8. 62(2):121-126. 10.1016/j. recot.2017.10.006 8. Reintgen C, Gerlach EB, Schoch BS, et al. What outcome measures are reported in the management of acromioclavicular joint injuries? Orthop J Sports Med. 2020
  9. 8(1):2325967119892322. 10.1177/2325967119892322 9. van Bergen CJA, van Bemmel AF, Alta TDW, van Noort A. New insights in the treatment of acromioclavicular separation. World J Orthop. 2017
  10. 8(12):861-873. 10.5312/wjo.v8.i12.861 10. Korsten K, Gunning AC, Leenen Luke PH. Operative or conservative treatment in patients with Rockwood type III acromioclavicular dislocation: A systematic review and update of current literature. Int Orthop. 2014
  11. 38(4):831-838. 10. 1007/s00264-013-2143-7 11. De Carli A, Lanzetti RM, Ciompi A, Lupariello D, Rota P, Ferretti A. Acromioclavicular third degree dislocation: Surgical treatment in acute cases. J Orthop Surg Res. 2015
  12. s13018-014-0150-z 12. Barwood SA, French JA, Watson LA, Balster SM, Hoy GA, Pizzari T. The Specific AC Score (SACS