Advertisement

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

, Volume 468, Issue 3, pp 815–826 | Cite as

Which Are the Most Frequently Used Outcome Instruments in Studies on Total Ankle Arthroplasty?

  • Florian D. NaalEmail author
  • Franco M. Impellizzeri
  • Pascal F. Rippstein
Survey (Systematic Review)

Abstract

The number of studies reporting on outcomes after total ankle arthroplasty is continuously increasing. As the use of valid outcome measures represents the cornerstone for successful clinical research, we aimed to identify the most frequently used outcome instruments in ankle arthroplasty studies and to analyze the evidence to support their use in terms of different quality criteria. A systematic review of the literature identified 15 outcome instruments reported in 79 original studies. The most commonly used measures were the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society hindfoot score (n = 41), the Kofoed ankle score (n = 21), a visual analog scale assessing pain (n = 15), and the generic SF-36 (n = 6). Eight additional instruments were used only once or twice. The American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society and Kofoed instruments include a clinical examination and score up to 100 points. Evidence to support their use in terms of validity, reliability, responsiveness, and interpretability is limited, raising the question whether their use is justified. Self-reported questionnaires related to ankle osteoarthritis or arthroplasty are rather disregarded in the current literature, and only the Foot Function Index is associated with evidence in terms of the above-mentioned quality criteria. Future research is warranted to improve the outcome assessment after total ankle arthroplasty.

Keywords

Minimal Clinically Important Difference Standardize Response Mean Outcome Instrument Total Ankle Arthroplasty Small Detectable Change 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Agel J, Beskin JL, Brage M, Guyton GP, Kadel NJ, Saltzman CL, Sands AK, Sangeorzan BJ, SooHoo NF, Stroud CC, Thordarson DB. Reliability of the Foot Function Index: a report of the AOFAS Outcomes Committee. Foot Ankle Int. 2005;26:962–967.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW. Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol. 1988;15:1833–1840.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Budiman-Mak E, Conrad K, Stuck R, Matters M. Theoretical model and Rasch analysis to develop a revised Foot Function Index. Foot Ankle Int. 2006;27:519–527.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Budiman-Mak E, Conrad KJ, Roach KE. The Foot Function Index: a measure of foot pain and disability. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991;44:561–570.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Buechel FF, Pappas MJ, Iorio LJ. New Jersey low contact stress total ankle replacement: biomechanical rationale and review of 23 cementless cases. Foot Ankle. 1988;8:279–290.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Button G, Pinney S. A meta-analysis of outcome rating scales in foot and ankle surgery: is there a valid, reliable, and responsive system? Foot Ankle Int. 2004;25:521–525.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A, Murray D. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996;78:185–190.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Knol DL, Bouter LM. When to use agreement versus reliability measures. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59:1033–1039.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Domsic RT, Saltzman CL. Ankle osteoarthritis scale. Foot Ankle Int. 1998;19:466–471.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Engelberg R, Martin DP, Agel J, Obremsky W, Coronado G, Swiontkowski MF. Musculoskeletal Function Assessment instrument: criterion and construct validity. J Orthop Res. 1996;14:182–192.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Evanski PH, Waugh TR. Management of arthritis of the ankle: an alternative of arthrodesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1977;122:110–115.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fries JF, Spitz P, Kraines RG, Hotman HR. Measurement of patient outcome in arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 1980;23:137–145.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Guyatt GH, Deyo RA, Charlson M, Levine MN, Mitchell A. Responsiveness and validity in health status measurement: a clarification. J Clin Epidemiol. 1989;42:403–408.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Guyatt GH, Feeny DH, Patrick DL. Measuring health-related quality of life. Ann Intern Med. 1993;118:622–629.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Guyer AJ, Richardson G. Current concepts review: total ankle arthroplasty. Foot Ankle Int. 2008;29:256–264.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Guyton GP. Theoretical limitations of the AOFAS scoring systems: an analysis using Monte Carlo modeling. Foot Ankle Int. 2001;22:779–787.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Haddad SL, Coetzee JC, Estok R, Fahrbach K, Banel D, Nalysnyk L. Intermediate and long-term outcomes of total ankle arthroplasty and ankle arthrodesis: a systematic review of the literature. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:1899–1905.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hosman AH, Mason RB, Hobbs T, Rothwell AG. A New Zealand national joint registry review of 202 total ankle replacements followed for up to 6 years. Acta Orthop. 2007;78:584–591.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ibrahim T, Beiri A, Azzabi M, Best AJ, Taylor GJ, Menon DK. Reliability and validity of the subjective component of the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society clinical rating scales. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2007;46:65–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kirshner BF, Guyatt GH. A methodological framework for assessing health indices. J Chronic Dis. 1985;38:27–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kitaoka HB, Alexander IJ, Adelaar RS, Nunley JA, Myerson MS, Sanders M. Clinical rating systems for the ankle-hindfoot, midfoot, hallux, and lesser toes. Foot Ankle Int. 1994;15:349–353.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kofoed H. A new total ankle joint prosthesis. In: Kossowsky R, Kossovsky V, eds. Material Sciences and Implant Orthopedic Surgery. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff; 1986:75–84.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kofoed H. Cylindrical cemented ankle arthroplasty: a prospective series with long-term follow-up. Foot Ankle Int. 1995;16:474–479.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kuyvenhoven MM, Gorter KJ, Zuithoff P, Budiman-Mak E, Conrad KJ, Post MW. The foot function index with verbal rating scales (FFI-5pt): a clinimetric evaluation and comparison with the original FFI. J Rheumatol. 2002;29:1023–1028.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lohr KN, Aaronson NK, Alonso J, Burnam MA, Patrick DL, Perrin EB, Roberts JS. Evaluating quality-of-life and health status instruments: development of scientific review criteria. Clin Ther. 1996;18:979–992.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Malviya A, Makwana N, Laing P. Correlation of the AOFAS scores with a generic health QUALY score in foot and ankle surgery. Foot Ankle Int. 2007;28:494–498.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Martin RL, Irrgang JJ. A survey of self-reported outcome instruments for the foot and ankle. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2007;37:72–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Martin RL, Irrgang JJ, Burdett RG, Conti SF, Van Swearingen JM. Evidence of validity for the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM). Foot Ankle Int. 2005;26:968–983.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mazur JM, Schwartz E, Simon SR. Ankle arthrodesis: long-term follow-up with gait analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1979;61:964–975.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Naal FD, Impellizzeri FM, Huber M, Rippstein PF. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Foot Function Index for use in German-speaking patients with foot complaints. Foot Ankle Int. 2008;29:1222–1228.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Naal FD, Impellizzeri FM, Loibl M, Huber M, Rippstein PF. Habitual physical activity and sports participation after total ankle arthroplasty. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37:95–102.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Neufeld SK, Lee TH. Total ankle arthroplasty: indications, results, and biomechanical rationale. Am J Orthop. 2000;29:593–602.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Parker J, Nester CJ, Long AF, Barrie J. The problem with measuring patient perceptions of outcome with existing outcome measures in foot and ankle surgery. Foot Ankle Int. 2003;24:56–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Pena F, Agel J, Coetzee JC. Comparison of the MFA to the AOFAS outcome tool in a population undergoing total ankle replacement. Foot Ankle Int. 2007;28:788–793.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Radford PJ. General outcomes measures. In: Pynsent PB, Fairbank JC, Carr A, eds. Outcome Measures in Orthopaedics. London, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann; 1993:59–80.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    SooHoo NF, Samimi DB, Vyas RM, Botzler T. Evaluation of the validity of the Foot Function Index in measuring outcomes in patients with foot and ankle disorders. Foot Ankle Int. 2006;27:38–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    SooHoo NF, Shuler M, Fleming LL; American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society. Evaluation of the validity of the AOFAS Clinical Rating Systems by correlation to the SF-36. Foot Ankle Int. 2003;24:50–55.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    SooHoo NF, Vyas R, Samimi D. Responsiveness of the foot function index, AOFAS clinical rating systems, and SF-36 after foot and ankle surgery. Foot Ankle Int. 2006;27:930–934.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Takakura Y, Tanaka Y, Sugimoto K, Tamai S, Masuhara K. Ankle arthroplasty: a comparative study of cemented metal and uncemented ceramic prostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990;252:209–216.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:34–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    van der Leeden M, Steultjens MP, Terwee CB, Rosenbaum D, Turner D, Woodburn J, Dekker J. A systematic review of instruments measuring foot function, foot pain, and foot-related disability in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2008;59:1257–1269.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Veenhof C, Bijlsma JW, van den Ende CH, van Dijk GM, Pisters MF, Dekker J. Psychometric evaluation of osteoarthritis questionnaires: a systematic review of the literature. Arthritis Rheum. 2006;55:480–492.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30:473–483.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    World Health Organization. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2001. Available at: http://www.who.int/classifications/icf/en/. Accessed June 20, 2009.
  45. 45.
    Wright RW, Brand RA, Dunn W, Spindler KP. How to write a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;455:23–29.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Wu SH, Liang HW, Hou WH. Reliability and validity of the Taiwan Chinese version of the Foot Function Index. J Formos Med Assoc. 2008;107:111–118.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons® 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Florian D. Naal
    • 1
    Email author
  • Franco M. Impellizzeri
    • 2
  • Pascal F. Rippstein
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryFoot and Ankle Center, Schulthess ClinicZurichSwitzerland
  2. 2.Department of Research and DevelopmentSchulthess ClinicZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations