• Users Online: 429
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2016  |  Volume : 2  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 86-93

Validation of a modified Scoliosis Research Society instrument for patients with limb deformity: The limb deformity-Scoliosis Research Society (LD-SRS) score


1 Pediatric Orthopaedic Surgery Service, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, USA
2 Limb Lengthening and Complex Reconstruction Service, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA
3 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California-Irvine, Orange, CA, USA
4 Sports Medicine and Shoulder Service, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA

Correspondence Address:
Peter D Fabricant
Hospital for Special Surgery, 535 East 70th Street, New York, NY 10021
USA
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/2455-3719.190710

Rights and Permissions

Background: Despite the large negative effect of limb deformity on health-related quality of life (QoL), there exists no patient-reported instrument to quantify this impact. Rather, limb deformity research has been performed using global QoL measurements concurrently with joint-specific and/or arthritis outcome scales, thereby requiring the completion of multiple instruments. Furthermore, joint- and arthritis-specific instruments focus on the impact pain has on function, whereas limb deformities may be pain-free with greater social and functional impairment. The purpose of this study was to validate a patient-reported instrument to quantify limb deformity-related QoL. Materials and Methods: Because of the similarities with regard to pain, function, and body image between limb deformity and scoliosis, the Scoliosis Research Society-30 (SRS-30) spine deformity instrument was modified such that the words "back" and "trunk" were replaced with "limb" to create a novel instrument: the limb deformity-SRS (LD-SRS). Testing for construct validity (both convergent and discriminant), reliability, floor and ceiling effects, and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was performed in a validation cohort of 62 subjects aged 18 years or older with nonarthritic, unilateral lower extremity deformity. Results: Scale reliability was excellent (test-retest reliability, intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.977; internal consistency, Cronbach's alpha = 0.906), scores were normally distributed, and there were no floor or ceiling effects. There was also robust construct validity: convergent validity testing revealed positive correlations between the LD-SRS and all short-form-36 domains, the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons-Lower Limb Module, and higher scores in those who were postcorrection. Discriminant validity was demonstrated with no correlations between the LD-SRS and subject age, sex, body mass index, surgeon-scored Limb Lengthening and Reconstruction Society-AIM Index, or surgeon-generated deformity measurements. MCID was calculated to be 0.3 (on a 4.0-point scale). Conclusions: The LD-SRS score is a reliable and valid instrument to measure limb deformity-related QoL in patients with nonarthritic lower extremity deformity. It is a valuable tool which allows clinicians to quantify patients' deformity-related QoL with a single instrument, rather than repurposing scales which have been validated for other conditions and have limited applicability to the unique challenges of treating patients with a lower limb deformity. Level of Evidence: Diagnostic, Level 2.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1479    
    Printed100    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded19    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 2    

Recommend this journal