Abstract
Purpose
The SFAV (Simple Foot and Ankle Value) consists in asking patients how they rate their joint function on the day of the examination, as a percentage of that of a normal joint (0–100% scale with 100% being normal). The main objective was to validate the SFAV by determining its correlation with validated foot and ankle function scores.
Methods
This was a prospective study. 90 patients were included in three groups: patients 16 to 54 years old with an acute or subacute ankle pathology (foot/ankle trauma patient group), patients more than 55 years old with ankle or foot osteoarthritis (foot/ankle degeneration patient group), and adults of any age without foot or ankle pathology (control group). A self-administered questionnaire with the American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society, The European Foot and Ankle Society, the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score, the Visual Analogic Scale, and the SFAV was given at three different timepoints (enrollment, preoperative visit, and 6-month postoperative visit) to the patients. The validity of the SFAV was investigated by determining its correlation with the existing foot and ankle PROMs using Spearman’s correlation; test–retest reliability, the responsiveness to change, and the discriminative ability of the SFAV were also analyzed. The significance threshold was set at 0.05.
Results
The SFAV was significantly correlated with the AOFAS, EFAS, and FAOS at all tested time points, with all p values below 0.033. SFAV scoring was reliable over time, as p values resulting from the comparison between initial and preoperative SFAV were all above the significance threshold. SFAV scoring was responsive to change, based on the comparison between pre- and postoperative SFAV (p < 0.05). Like for the AOFAS, EFAS, and FAOS, SFAV provides good discrimination between a healthy subject and a patient. The control group scores and initial consultation scores of the pooled patient’s groups were statistically correlated (p < 0.05).
Conclusion
The SFAV is a valid outcome measure correlated with the AOFAS, EFAS, FAOS, and VAS.
Level of evidence
Level of evidence III.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Wilson I, Bohm E, Lübbeke A, Lyman S, Overgaard S, Rolfson O, W-Dahl A, Wilkinson M, Dunbar M (2019) Orthopaedic registries with patient-reported outcome measures. EFORT Open Rev 4:357–367
Roos EM, Brandsson S, Karlsson J (2001) Validation of the foot and ankle outcome score for ankle ligament reconstruction. Foot Ankle Int 22:788–794
Casalino LP, Gans D, Weber R, Cea M, Tuchovsky A, Bishop TF, Miranda Y, Frankel BA, Ziehler KB, Wong MM, Evenson TB (2016) US Physician practices spend more than $15.4 billion annually to report quality measures. Health Aff (Millwood) 35:401–406
Williams GN, Gangel TJ, Arciero RA, Uhorchak JM, Taylor DC (1999) Comparison of the single assessment numeric evaluation method and two shoulder rating scales. outcomes measures after shoulder surgery. Am J Sports Med 27:214–221
Gilbart MK, Gerber C (2007) Comparison of the subjective shoulder value and the constant score. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 16:717–721
Marot V, Justo A, Alshanquiti A, Reina N, Accadbled F, Berard E, Cavaignac E (2020) Simple knee value: a simple evaluation correlated to existing knee PROMs. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-020-06281-1
Plachel F, Jung T, Bartek B, Rüttershoff K, Perka C, Gwinner C (2021) The subjective knee value is a valid single-item survey to assess knee function in common knee disorders. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-021-03794-3
Marot V, Vilette H, Dalmas Y, Justo A, Reina N, Cavaignac E, Berard E, Accadbled F (2021) Pediatric simple knee value: a simple patient-reported outcome measure for the knee. J Child Orthop 15:76–80
Parry JA, Peterson SL, Strage KE, Hadeed M, Heare A, Stacey SC, Mauffrey C (2021) Percent of normal: a pragmatic patient-reported outcome measure for the orthopaedic trauma clinic. J Orthop Trauma 35:e429–e432
Dumont GD, Glenn RL, Battle NC, Thier ZT (2021) Correlation of the single-assessment numeric evaluation (SANE) score with hip-specific patient-reported outcome measures. Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil 3:e435–e440
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
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
Guyton GP (2001) Theoretical limitations of the AOFAS scoring systems: an analysis using monte carlo modeling. Foot Ankle Int 22:779–787
Pinsker E, Daniels TR (2011) AOFAS position statement regarding the future of the AOFAS clinical rating systems. Foot Ankle Int 32:841–842
Richter M, Agren P-H, Besse J-L, Cöster M, Kofoed H, Maffulli N, Rosenbaum D, Steultjens M, Alvarez F, Boszczyk A, Buedts K, Guelfi M, Liszka H, Louwerens J-W, Repo JP, Samaila E, Stephens M, Witteveen AGH (2018) EFAS score - multilingual development and validation of a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) by the score committee of the European foot and ankle society (EFAS). Foot Ankle Surg 24:185–204
Lakey E, Hunt KJ (2019) Patient-reported outcomes in foot and ankle orthopedics. Foot Ankle Orthop 4:2473011419852930
Scott J, Huskisson EC (1976) Graphic representation of pain. Pain 2:175–184
Kravitz RL, Callahan EJ, Paterniti D, Antonius D, Dunham M, Lewis CE (1996) Prevalence and sources of patients’ unmet expectations for care. Ann Intern Med 125:730–737
Uhlmann RF, Inui TS, Carter WB (1984) Patient requests and expectations. Definitions and clinical applications. Med Care 22:681–685
Flood AB, Lorence DP, Ding J, McPherson K, Black NA (1993) The role of expectations in patients’ reports of post-operative outcomes and improvement following therapy. Med Care 31:1043–1056
Funding
No funding was received for this study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest in relation to this study.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Marot, V., Justo, A., Guenego, E. et al. Simple foot an ankle value: a simple evaluation correlated to the existing PROMs. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 33, 3011–3017 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-023-03527-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-023-03527-9