Acta Scientific Orthopaedics (ISSN: 2581-8635)

Research Article Volume 3 Issue 6

Assessment of Postoperative Functional Outcome Following Brachial Plexus Palsy: Development and Validation of the Ioannina Functional Scale

Magdalini S Stamou1*, Marios D Vekris2, Eleana N Bontioti2 and Anastasios Korobilias2

1Department of Physiotherapy, University of West Attica, Greece
2Department of Orthopedics, University Hospital of Ioannina, University of Ioannina, Medical School, Ioannina, Greece

*Corresponding Author: Magdalini S Stamou, Laboratory Teaching Stuff, Physiotherapy Department, University of West Attica, Athens, Greece.

Received: April 27, 2020; Published: May 19, 2020



Aim: To create and validate a new assessment tool (Ioannina Functional Scale) for the postoperative evaluation of patients with brachial plexus palsy.

Methods: The study included 57 patients who suffering lesion to the brachial plexus and had undergone surgery at the Orthopaedic Clinic at the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Ioannina. All procedures were led by the same surgeon (M.D.V.) The collection of data for the research was carried out by reviewing patients’ files, interviewing patients and retrieving information from their physiotherapists. In all cases, written consent was obtained from the patients. Previous assessments tools for evaluating upper extremity function like the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (D.A.S.H.), the Pain Visual Analogue Scale (P.V.A.S.) and the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (I.C.F.) constituted the baseline of our comparison. Multiple statistical methods were used to establish the validity and reliability of the I.F.S. Pearson’s and Spearman’s tests were used for validation, Cronbach’s alpha procedure for reliability, and Shapiro-Wilk for normality.

Results: Mean value of index for the I.F.S. was 49.81. A positive and very strong linear correlation between I.F.S. and D.A.S.H. indexes was documented. Distribution of the I.F.S. was found to be normal. Correlation between I.F.S. and P.V.A.S. were statistically significant with p = 0.000.

Conclusion: Based on the reliability and validity tests carried out in the present study, the Ioannina Functional Scale was found to be a useful assessment tool for evaluating the postoperative progress in patients with brachial plexus injury.

Keywords: Magdalini S Stamou, Laboratory Teaching Stuff, Physiotherapy Department, University of West Attica, Athens, Greece.



  1. Mackinnon SE, et al “Results of reinnervation of the biceps and brachialis muscles with a double fascicular transfer for elbow flexion”. The Journal of Hand Surgery 5 (2005): 978-985.
  2. Zimmerman NB., et al. "Are standardized patient self-reporting instruments applicable to the evaluation of ulnar neuropathy at the elbow?”. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery 3 (2009): 463-468.
  3. Bertelli JA and Ghizoni MF. “Brachial plexus avulsion injury repairs with nerve transfers and nerve grafts directly implanted into the spinal cord yield partial recovery of shoulder and elbow movements”. Neurosurgery6 (2003): 1389-1390.
  4. Kitajima I., et al. “Evaluation of quality of life in brachial plexus injury patients after reconstructive surgery”. Hand Surgery 3 (2006): 103-107.
  5. Novak CB., et al. “Validity of the Patient Specific Functional Scale in patients following upper extremity nerve injury”. Hand (N Y)2 (2013): 132-138.
  6. Novak CB., et al. “Patient-reported outcome after peripheral nerve injury”. The Journal of Hand Surgery American 2 (2009): 281-287.
  7. Themistocleous GS., et al. “Translation into Greek, cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Questionnaire (DASH)”. Journal of Hand Therapy 3 (2006): 350-357.
  8. Huskisson EC. “Measurement of Pain”. The Lancet7889 (1974): 1127-1131.
  9. Medical Research Council. “Aids to examination of the peripheral nervous system”. Memorandum London: Her Majesty’s Stationary Office 45 (1976).
  10. Terzis JK., et al. “Outcomes of brachial plexus reconstruction in 204 patients with devastating paralysis”. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 5 (1999): 1221-1240.
  11. Vekris MD., et al. “Restoration of elbow function in severe brachial plexus paralysis via muscle transfers”. Injury 39.3 (2008): 15-22.
  12. Hill BE., et al “ Clinimetric Evaluation of Questionnaires Used to Assess Activity After Traumatic Brachial Plexus Lesion in Adults: A Systematic Review”. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 12 (2011): 2082-2089.
  13. Millesi H., et al. “Nomenclature in peripheral nerve surgery. Committee report of the International Society of Reconstructive Microsurgery”. Clinics in Plastic Surgery 1 (1984): 3-8.
  14. Chuang DCC. “Brachial Plexus Lesion: Nerve Reconstruction and Functioning Muscle Transplantation Extremity-Saving Surgery and Reconstruction: From Microsurgery Reconstruction to Transplantation”. Seminars in Plastic Surgery 1 (2010): 57-66.
  15. Kretschmer T., et al. “Patient satisfaction and disability after brachial plexus surgery”. Neurosurgery4 (2009): 189-196.
  16. Dodakundi C., et al. “Outcome of surgical reconstruction after traumatic total brachial plexus palsy”. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery American16 (2013): 1505-1512.
  17. Stucki G., et al. “Value and application of the I.C.F. in rehabilitation medicine”. Disability and Rehabilitation 17 (2003): 932-938.
  18. Smania N., et al. “Rehabilitation of brachial plexus injuries in adults and children”. European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine 3 (2012): 483-506.
  19. Scott KR., et al. “Rehabilitation of brachial plexus and peripheral nerve disorders”. The Handbook of Clinical Neurology 110 (2013): 499-514.
  20. Land C., et al. “The Development and Evolution of Research on Social Indicators and Quality of Life (QOL)”. Handbook of Social Indicators and Quality of Life Research (2012): 1-22.


Citation: Magdalini S Stamou., et al. “Assessment of Postoperative Functional Outcome Following Brachial Plexus Palsy: Development and Validation of the Ioannina Functional Scale". Acta Scientific Orthopaedics 3.6 (2020): 28-35.


Acceptance rate33%
Acceptance to publication20-30 days

Indexed In

News and Events

Contact US