Dataset Information

The American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society Ankle-Hindfoot Scale; translation and validation of the Dutch language version for ankle fractures.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

The American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) Ankle-Hindfoot Scale is among the most commonly used instruments for measuring outcome of treatment in patients who sustained a complex ankle or hindfoot injury. It consists of a patient-reported and a physician-reported part. A validated, Dutch version of this instrument is currently not available. The aim of this study was to translate the instrument into Dutch and to determine the measurement properties of the AOFAS Ankle-Hindfoot Scale Dutch language version (DLV) in patients with a unilateral ankle fracture.

Setting

Multicentre (two Dutch hospitals), prospective observational study.

Participants

In total, 142 patients with a unilateral ankle fracture were included. Ten patients were lost to follow-up.

Primary and secondary outcome measures

Patients completed the subjective (patient-reported) part of the AOFAS Ankle-Hindfoot Scale-DLV. A physician or trained physician-assistant completed the physician-reported part. For comparison and evaluation of the measuring characteristics, the Foot Function Index and the Short Form-36 were completed by the patient. Descriptive statistics (including floor and ceiling effects), reliability (ie, internal consistency), construct validity, reproducibility (ie, test-retest reliability, agreement and smallest detectable change) and responsiveness were determined.

Results

The AOFAS-DLV and its subscales showed good internal consistency (Cronbach's α >0.90). Construct validity and longitudinal validity were proven to be adequate (76.5% of predefined hypotheses were confirmed). Floor effects were not present. Ceiling effects were present from 6 months onwards, as expected. Responsiveness was adequate, with a smallest detectable change of 12.0 points.

Conclusions

The AOFAS-DLV is a reliable, valid and responsive measurement instrument for evaluating functional outcome in patients with a unilateral ankle fracture. This implies that the questionnaire is suitable to compare different treatment modalities within this population or to compare outcome across hospitals.

Trial registration

The Netherlands Trial Register (NTR5613; 05-jan-2016).

SUBMITTER: de Boer AS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5588950 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVES:The American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) Ankle-Hindfoot Scale is among the most used questionnaires for measuring functional recovery after a hindfoot injury. Recently, this instrument was translated and culturally adapted into a Dutch version. In this study, the measurement properties of the Dutch language version (DLV) were investigated in patients with a unilateral hindfoot fracture. DESIGN:Multicentre, prospective observational study. SETTING:This multicentre study was conducted in three Dutch hospitals. PARTICIPANTS:In total, 118 patients with a unilateral hindfoot fracture were included. Three patients were lost to follow-up. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES:Patients were asked to complete the AOFAS-DLV, the Foot Function Index and the Short Form-36 on three occasions. Descriptive statistics (including floor and ceiling effects), reliability (ie, internal consistency), construct validity, reproducibility (ie, test-retest reliability, agreement and smallest detectable change (SDC)) and responsiveness were determined. RESULTS:Internal consistency was inadequate for the AOFAS-DLV total scale (?=0.585), but adequate for the function subscale (?=0.863). The questionnaire had adequate construct validity (82.4% of predefined hypotheses were confirmed), but inadequate longitudinal validity (70.6%). No floor effects were found, but ceiling effects were present in all AOFAS-DLV (sub)scales, most pronounced from 6 to 24 months after trauma onwards. Responsiveness was only adequate for the pain and alignment subscales, with a SDC of 1.7 points. CONCLUSIONS:The AOFAS Ankle-Hindfoot Scale DLV has adequate construct validity and is reliable, making it a suitable instrument for cross-sectional studies investigating functional outcome in patients with a hindfoot fracture. The inadequate longitudinal validity and responsiveness, however, hamper the use of the questionnaire in longitudinal studies and for assessing long-term functional outcome. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NTR5613; Post-results.

Project description:BackgroundThe growing social media presence in healthcare has provided physicians with new ways to engage with patients. However, foot and ankle orthopaedic surgeons have been found to underuse social media platforms despite their known benefits for patients and surgeons. Thus, this study sought to investigate the reasons for this phenomenon and to identify potential barriers to social media utilization in clinical practice.MethodsA 19-question survey was distributed to active attending physicians identified through the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society membership database. The survey included demographic, practice characteristics, and social media use questions assessed by a 5-point Likert scale. Logistic regression was used to identify predictors of positive attitudes toward social media.ResultsFifty-eight surgeons were included. Most respondents were male (n = 43, 74.1%), in private practice (n = 31, 53.5%), and described their practice to be greater than 51% elective procedures (n = 46, 79.4%). The average years in practice was 14.8 years (standard deviation, SD: 10.0 years). A total of 32.8% (n = 19) of surgeons reported using social media as part of their clinical practice. Facebook (n = 19, 32.8%), a professional website or blog (n = 18, 31.0%), and LinkedIn (n = 15, 25.9%) were the most used platforms-primarily for practice marketing or brand development (n = 19, 32.8%). A total of 58.6% (n = 34) of surgeons reported they did not use social media. The primary reasons were the time commitment (n = 31, 53.5%), concerns about obscuring professional boundaries (n = 22, 37.9%), and concerns regarding confidentiality (n = 11, 19.0%). Many surgeons reported that social media positively influences foot and ankle surgery (n = 23, 39.7%), although no individual predictors for these views could be identified.ConclusionsFoot and ankle orthopaedic surgeons tended to view social media use positively, but the time investment and concerns over professionalism and confidentiality pose challenges to its use. Given the influence of a surgeon's social media identity on patient satisfaction and practice building, efforts should be made to streamline social media use for foot and ankle surgeons to establish their online presence.Level of evidenceLevel IV, cross-sectional study.

Project description:BackgroundFor future etiologic cohort studies in runners it is important to identify whether (hyper)pronation of the foot, decreased ankle joint dorsiflexion (AJD) and the degree of the extension of the first Metatarsophalangeal joint (MTP1) are risk factors for running injuries and to determine possible sex differences.These parameters are frequently determined with the navicular drop test (NDT) Stance and Single Limb-Stance, the Ankle Joint Dorsiflexion-test, and the extension MTP1-test in a healthy population. The aim of this clinimetric study was to determine the reproducibility of these three orthopaedic tests in runners, using minimal equipment in order to make them applicable in large cohort studies. Furthermore, we aimed to determine possible sex differences of these tests.MethodsThe three orthopaedic tests were administered by two sports physiotherapists in a group of 42 (22 male and 20 female) recreational runners. The intra-class correlation (ICC) for interrater and intrarater reliability and the standard error of measurement (SEM) were calculated. Bland and Altman plots were used to determine the 95% limits of agreements (LOAs). Furthermore, the difference between female and male runners was determined.ResultsThe ICC's of the NDT were in the range of 0.37 to 0.45, with a SEM in the range of 2.5 to 5 mm. The AJD-test had an ICC of 0.88 and 0.86 (SEM 2.4° and 8.7°), with a 95% LOA of -6.0° to 6.3° and -5.3° to 7.9°, and the MTP1-test had an ICC of 0.42 and 0.62 (SEM 34.4° and 9.9°), with a 95% LOA of -30.9° to 20.7° and -20° to 17.8° for the interrater and intrarater reproducibility, respectively.Females had a significantly (p<0.05) lower navicular drop score and higher range of motion in extension of the MTP1, but no sex differences were found for ankle dorsiflexion (p ? 0.05).ConclusionThe reproducibility for the AJD test in runners is good, whereas that of the NDT and extension MTP1 was moderate or low. We found a difference in NDT and MTP1 mobility between female and male runners, however this needs to be established in a larger study with more reliable test procedures.

Project description:BackgroundPatients undergoing fixation for foot and ankle fractures may experience poor outcomes despite achieving apparent anatomic reduction. Adjunct arthroscopy to identify missed concomitant injuries and subtle displacements has been proposed as a vehicle to enhance functional results for these patients. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of the literature regarding arthroscopically assisted open reduction and internal fixation (AAORIF) methods for commonly encountered foot and ankle injuries including pilon, ankle, and calcaneus fractures published to date.MethodsA systematic review of the literature was performed using the PubMed database to access all studies reporting on arthroscopically assisted internal fixation methods for pilon, ankle, and calcaneus fractures. Relevant publications were analyzed for details on their respective study designs, the operative technique used, clinical outcomes, outcome instruments used, and reported complications.ResultsA total of 32 studies were included in this review. Two studies on pilon fractures, a randomized controlled trial (RCT) and case series with a total of 243 patients, met inclusion criteria. Postoperative articular reductions, bone union, and Mazur scores were found to be significantly better for those using adjunct arthroscopy when compared to those with no arthroscopy use. Patient-reported outcomes were overall reported as excellent for most patients, with no difference in patient-reported outcomes reported in the RCT. For ankle fractures, a total of 17 studies comprising of 2 systematic reviews, 1 meta-analysis, 2 RCTs, 5 retrospective comparative studies, 6 case series, and 1 case-control study met inclusion criteria for this review. Results were mixed, though the overall consensus was that arthroscopy use may help to better visualize concomitant intra-articular injuries and is generally considered safe with at least comparable outcomes to conventional methods. For the calcaneus, 13 studies met the criteria. Two studies were review papers, 8 were case series, and 3 were retrospective comparative studies. A total of 308 patients with 316 fractures formed the basis of analysis. In general, the studies found comparable functional outcomes between with or without arthroscopy use, but found that anatomical reductions were significantly improved with the use of arthroscopy.ConclusionsArthroscopy shows promise as a valuable adjunct tool for internal fixation of foot and ankle fractures, though definitive conclusions as to its clinical significance have yet to be drawn because of limited evidence. Potential advantages related to the direct visualization of the fracture site and minimally invasive nature of arthroscopy were suggested throughout studies examined in this review. The presence of intra-articular pathology may lead to unexpectedly poor outcomes seen in some patients who undergo surgical fixation of ankle fractures with an otherwise anatomic reduction on postoperative radiographs; the ability to diagnose and address these lesions with arthroscopy, therefore, has the potential to improve patient outcomes. To date, however, available literature has not shown that significant improvements in anatomical reductions and treatment of these intra-articular injuries provide any improvement in outcomes over standard fixation methods. Few prospective randomized controlled studies have been performed comparing these 2 operative techniques, rendering any suggestion that AAORIF improves clinical outcomes over traditional open fixation difficult to justify. Further research is indicated for what may be a potentially promising surgical adjunct prior to advocating for its routine use in patients.