Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Normative data for the American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society ankle-hindfoot, midfoot, hallux and lesser toes clinical rating system

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Despite some theoretical reservations, the AOFAS clinical rating system with its scales for ankle-hindfoot, midfoot, hallux and lesser toes is one of the most widely used assessment tools in foot and ankle surgery. This study was designed to generate age- and gender-related norm values for all four subscales.

Methods

Despite not being used in a self-administered manner, the AOFAS score underwent cross cultural adaptation to guarantee unrestricted comparability of data. A data pool was generated using the results of personal interviews and clinical examination of 625 individuals, including staff and visitors to our hospital, and excluding people scheduled for foot surgery or in after-treatment. These data served as a basis to calculate all four parts of the AOFAS clinical rating system.

Results

Mean value for the ankle-hindfoot scale was calculated as 91.6 points (±0.9 confidence interval), and 89.3 points for the midfoot scale (±1.0 CI), 88.3 for the hallux metatarsophalangeal-interphalangeal scale (± 0.9 CI) and 91.0 for the lesser metatarsophalangeal-interphalangeal scale (± 0.8 CI). Results showed a decrease with age in all four scales. Males showed better results than females. Individuals with previous surgery showed lower results in the respective score.

Conclusions

While lowered scoring results prior to surgery reflect the degree of restrictions due to pain, function and alignment problems, post-operative increases in clinical scoring should indicate return to age-related norm values. Our data calculated these norm values for the first time for all four AOFAS scales, giving a basis for better interpretation of published results in foot and ankle surgery. Our data showed and quantified the decrease of norm values with age, especially for hallux and lesser toes scores, as well as lower norm values for females and for individuals that had had surgery of the foot.

Level of Evidence: Level I, diagnostic study.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Guyton G (2001) Theoretical limitations of the AOFAS scoring systems: an analysis using Monte Carlo modeling. Foot Ankle Int 22:779–787

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Schneider W, Knahr K (1998) Scoring in forefoot surgery. A statistical evaluation of single variables and rating systems. Acta Orthop Scand 69:498–504

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Schneider W, Knahr K (2005) Poor agreement between prospective and retrospective assessment of hallux surgery using the AOFAS Hallux Scale. Foot Ankle Int 26:1062–1066

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. SooHoo NF, Shuler M, Fleming LL, American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (2003) Evaluation of the validity of the AOFAS Clinical Rating Systems by correlation to the SF-36. Foot Ankle Int 24:50–55

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. SooHoo NF, Vyas R, Samimi D (2006) Responsiveness of the foot function index, AOFAS clinical rating systems, and SF-36 after foot and ankle surgery. Foot Ankle Int 27:930–934

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Toolan BC, Wright Quinones VJ, Cunningham BJ, Brage ME (2001) An evaluation of the use of retrospectively acquired preoperative AOFAS clinical rating scores to assess surgical outcome after elective foot and ankle surgery. Foot Ankle Int 22:775–778

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kitaoka HB, Alexander IJ, Adelaar RS, Nunley JA, Myerson MS, Sanders M (1994) Clinical rating systems for the ankle-hindfoot, midfoot, hallux, and lesser toes. Foot Ankle Int 15:349–353

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Button G, Pinney S (2004) A meta-analysis of outcome rating scales in foot and ankle surgery: is there a valid, reliable, and responsive system? Foot Ankle Int 25:521–525

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Naal FD, Impellizzeri FM, Rippstein PF (2010) Which are the most frequently used outcome instruments in studies on total ankle arthroplasty? Clin Orthop Rel Res 468:815–826. doi:10.1007/s11999-009-1036-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Ware JE, Kosinski M, Keller SD (1994) SF-36 physical and mental health summary scales: a user’s manual. The Health Institute, New England Medical Center, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  11. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB (2000) Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine 25:3186–3191. doi:10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Schrier JC, Palmen LN, Verheyen CC, Jansen J, Koëter S (2015) Patient-reported outcome measures in hallux valgus surgery. A review of literature. Foot Ankle Surg 21:11–15. doi:10.1016/j.fas.2014.11.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Dufour AB, Casey VA, Golightly YM, Hannan MT (2014) Characteristics associated with hallux valgus in a population-based foot study of older adults. Arthritis Care Res 66:1880–1886. doi:10.1002/acr.22391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Nix SE, Vicenzino BT, Smith MD (2012) Foot pain and functional limitation in healthy adults with hallux valgus: a cross-sectional study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 13:197–207. doi:10.1186/1471-2474-13-197

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ferreira-Valente MA, Pais-Ribeiro JL, Jensen MP (2011) Validity of four pain intensity rating scales. Pain 152:2399–2404. doi:10.1016/j.pain.2011.07.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Menz HB, Gill TK, Taylor AW, Hill CL (2011) Age and gender differences in disabling foot pain using different definitions of the Manchester Foot Pain and Disability Index. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 12:243–252. doi:10.1186/1471-2474-12-243

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hecht PJ, Lin TJ (2014) Hallux valgus. Med Clin North Am 98:227–232. doi:10.1016/j.mcna.2013.10.007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Roddy E, Zhang W, Doherty M (2008) Prevalence and associations of hallux valgus in a primary care population. Arthritis Rheum 59:857–862. doi:10.1002/art.23709

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ellert U, Bellach BM (1999) The SF-36 in the Federal Health Survey—description of a current normal sample. Gesundheitswesen 61(Suppl 2):S184–S190

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hunt KJ, Hurwit D (2013) Use of patient-reported outcome measures in foot and ankle research. J Bone Joint Surg Am 95:e118. doi:10.2106/JBJS.L.01476

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Budiman-Mak E, Conrad KJ, Roach KE (1991) The Foot Function Index: a measure of foot pain and disability. J Clin Epidemiol 44:561–570

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Chen L, Lyman S, Do H, Karlsson J, Adam SP, Young E, Deland JT, Ellis SJ (2012) Validation of foot and ankle outcome score for hallux valgus. Foot Ankle Int 33:1145–1155. doi:10.3113/FAI.2012.1145

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Cöster M, Karlsson MK, Nilsson J, Carlsson A (2012) Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of a self-reported foot and ankle score (SEFAS). Acta Orthop 83:197–203. doi:10.3109/17453674.2012.657579

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Orthopaedic Department, Herz Jesu-Hospital, Baumgasse 20A, 1030, Vienna, Austria

    Wolfgang Schneider & Stefan Jurenitsch

Authors
  1. Wolfgang Schneider
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stefan Jurenitsch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wolfgang Schneider.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schneider, W., Jurenitsch, S. Normative data for the American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society ankle-hindfoot, midfoot, hallux and lesser toes clinical rating system. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 40, 301–306 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-015-3066-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-015-3066-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation