Our study had several limitations, chief among which is the size of our cohort. Although we were limited by the will- ingness of patients to return for functional testing, sixteen patients represents a reasonable sample size when compared with those in the existing literature. A post hoc power analysis indicated that the present study was sufficiently (80%) powered to detect a 10% reduction in strength of the injured extremity based on population variances. Establishment of that same power for the Constant score would have required an addi- tional 471 patients. This number seems sufficiently large to justify accepting the current results indicating no difference in Constant score between injured and uninjured sides. The small size may also represent a response bias, although we believe that symptomatic patients would be more likely to return for ad- ditional testing in the hope of improving their outcome