Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Survey (Systematic Review)
  • Published:
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

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.

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. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Knol DL, Bouter LM. When to use agreement versus reliability measures. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59:1033–1039.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Domsic RT, Saltzman CL. Ankle osteoarthritis scale. Foot Ankle Int. 1998;19:466–471.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Evanski PH, Waugh TR. Management of arthritis of the ankle: an alternative of arthrodesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1977;122:110–115.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Fries JF, Spitz P, Kraines RG, Hotman HR. Measurement of patient outcome in arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 1980;23:137–145.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Guyatt GH, Feeny DH, Patrick DL. Measuring health-related quality of life. Ann Intern Med. 1993;118:622–629.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Guyer AJ, Richardson G. Current concepts review: total ankle arthroplasty. Foot Ankle Int. 2008;29:256–264.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Guyton GP. Theoretical limitations of the AOFAS scoring systems: an analysis using Monte Carlo modeling. Foot Ankle Int. 2001;22:779–787.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kirshner BF, Guyatt GH. A methodological framework for assessing health indices. J Chronic Dis. 1985;38:27–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. Kofoed H. Cylindrical cemented ankle arthroplasty: a prospective series with long-term follow-up. Foot Ankle Int. 1995;16:474–479.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Neufeld SK, Lee TH. Total ankle arthroplasty: indications, results, and biomechanical rationale. Am J Orthop. 2000;29:593–602.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. Wright RW, Brand RA, Dunn W, Spindler KP. How to write a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;455:23–29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Foot and Ankle Center, Schulthess Clinic, Lengghalde 2, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland

    Florian D. Naal MD & Pascal F. Rippstein MD

  2. Department of Research and Development, Schulthess Clinic, Zurich, Switzerland

    Franco M. Impellizzeri PhD

Authors
  1. Florian D. Naal MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Franco M. Impellizzeri PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Pascal F. Rippstein MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Florian D. Naal MD.

Additional information

Each author certifies that he or she has no commercial associations (eg, consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article.

About this article

Cite this article

Naal, F.D., Impellizzeri, F.M. & Rippstein, P.F. Which Are the Most Frequently Used Outcome Instruments in Studies on Total Ankle Arthroplasty?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468, 815–826 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-009-1036-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-009-1036-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation