Introduction. The heterogeneity of outcomes used in the field of lower limb lengthening surgery (LLLS) affects our ability to synthesize evidence. This hampers robust systematic reviews and treatment recommendations for clinical practice. Ultimately this reduces the impact of research for both patients and healthcare professionals. This scoping review aimed to describe the outcomes and outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) used within the field of LLLS. Method. A systematic literature search of WOS, Scopus, Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library identified all studies reporting outcomes in children and adults after LLLS. All outcomes and OMIs were extracted verbatim. An iterative process was used to group outcome terms under standardized outcome headings categorized using the COMET Taxonomy of Outcomes. Result. Data saturation was achieved in 2020. A total of 142 studies were included between 2024-2020, reporting 2964 verbatim outcomes with 663 standardized outcome terms collapsed into 119 outcome headings (subdomains). A total of 29 patient-reported and 26 clinician-reported outcome instruments were identified. The most commonly reported outcome was “Lengthening amount”, reported in over 72% of the included studies, while “health-related quality of life” was measured in 16% and all life impact outcomes were reported in 19% of the included studies. Conclusion. A large number of peer-reviewed publications are available, demonstrating that significant resources are being devoted to research on LLLS. However, reported outcomes for people with LLLS are heterogeneous, subject to reporting bias, and vary widely in the definitions and measurement tools used to collect them. Outcomes likely to be important to patients, such as quality of life and measures of physical function, have been neglected. This scoping review identifies a need to standardize outcomes and outcome measures reported on patients recovering from lower limb lengthening surgery; this can be addressed by creating a core set of outcomes

Objectives

The patient-rated wrist evaluation (PRWE) and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire are patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used for clinical and research purposes. Methodological high-quality clinimetric studies that determine the measurement properties of these PROMs when used in patients with a distal radial fracture are lacking. This study aimed to validate the PRWE and DASH in Dutch patients with a displaced distal radial fracture (DRF).