Validity of five foot and ankle specific electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) instruments in patients undergoing elective orthopedic foot or ankle surgery

Development and Validation of the Ankle-GO Score for Discriminating and Predicting Return-to-Sport Outcomes After Lateral Ankle Sprain

BACKGROUND

Lateral ankle sprain (LAS) is the most common sports-related injury. However, there are currently no published evidence-based criteria to guide the patient's return to sport (RTS) and this decision is generally time-based. The aim of this study was to assess the psychometric properties of a new score (Ankle-GO) and its predictive ability for RTS at the same level of play after LAS.

HYPOTHESIS

The Ankle-GO is robust for discriminating and predicting RTS outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective diagnostic study.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 2.

METHODS

The Ankle-GO was administered to 30 healthy participants and 64 patients at 2 and 4 months after LAS. The score was calculated as the sum of 6 tests for a maximum of 25 points. Construct validity, internal consistency, discriminant validity, and test-retest reliability were used to validate the score. The predictive value for the RTS was also validated based on the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.

RESULTS

The internal consistency of the score was good (Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.79) with no ceiling or floor effect. Test-retest reliability was excellent (intraclass coefficient correlation = 0.99) with a minimum detectable change of 1.2 points. The 2-month scores were significantly lower than 4-month and control group scores (7.7 ± 4, 13.9 ± 4.6, and 19.6 ± 3.4 points, respectively, P < 0.01). Ankle-GO values were also significantly higher in patients who returned to their preinjury level at 4 months compared with those who did not (P < 0.01). The predictive value of the 2-month Ankle-GO score was fair for a RTS at the same or higher than preinjury level at 4 months (area under ROC curve, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.65-0.89; P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

The Ankle-GO appears to be a valid and robust score for clinicians to predict and discriminate RTS in patients after LAS.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Ankle-GO is the first objective score to help in the decision-making of the RTS after LAS. At 2 months, patients with an Ankle-GO score <8 points are unlikely to RTS at the same preinjury level.

Description of the Simple Ankle Value: A Simplified Patient-Reported Outcome Measure for the Assessment of Ankle and Hindfoot Function

Background

The Simple Ankle Value (SAV) is a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) in which patients grade their ankle function as a percentage of that of their contralateral uninjured ankle.

Purpose/Hypothesis

The primary aims of this study were to validate the SAV and evaluate its correlation with other PROMs. It was hypothesized that the SAV would be seen as a valid score that provides results comparable with those of the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) and the European Foot & Ankle Society (EFAS) score.

Study Design

Cohort study (Diagnosis); Level of evidence, 2.

Methods

Patients seen for an ankle or hindfoot tissue were divided into those treated operatively and nonoperatively. A control group of patients treated for issues outside of the foot and ankle was also created. All patients completed the SAV followed by the FAAM and the EFAS scores. Patients treated operatively completed the questionnaires before surgery and 3 months after surgery. Patients treated nonoperatively completed the questionnaires twice 15 days apart. The correlation between the SAV score, the FAAM score, and the EFAS score was estimated with the Spearman correlation coefficient.

Results

A total of 209 patients (79 in the operative group, 103 in the nonoperative group, and 27 in the control group) were asked to complete the questionnaire, and all were included. The test-retest reliability of the SAV was excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.88-0.94). No ceiling or floor effect was reported. Strong correlation was found between the SAV and the FAAM and EFAS scores. The SAV was able to discriminate patients from controls (54.18 ± 21.22 and 93.52 ± 9.589; P < .0001); however, SAV was not able to detect change from preoperative to 3 months postoperative (from 54.18 ± 21.22 to 62.53 ± 20.83; P = .44).

Conclusion

Our study suggests that the SAV is correlated with existing accepted ankle PROMs. Further work with this PROM is needed to validate the questionnaire.

Structural and Construct Validity of the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) With an Emphasis on Pain and Functionality After Foot Surgery: A Multicenter Study

The Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) is a patient-reported outcome measure that is available in several languages. We aim to assess the structural and construct validity of the FAAM with an emphasis on pain and functionality after foot surgery. The activities of daily living (ADL) and Sports subscales of the Finnish version of the FAAM were completed by 182 patients who underwent operative treatment for disorders of the foot. Convergent validity was assessed by principal component analysis using Spearman's correlation coefficient between the FAAM subscales and the principal components (Function-PC and Pain-PC) derived from validated patient-reported outcome measures. Subscales were studied for floor and ceiling effects, internal consistency and unidimensionality. Internal consistency was examined with Cronbach's alpha and the subscale structure with exploratory factor analysis. FAAM-ADL had high correlation with the Function-PC (r = 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.81-0.91) and the Pain-PC (r = 0.75, 95% CI 0.65-0.83). FAAM-Sports had moderate correlation (r = 0.64, 95% CI 0.50-0.74) with the Function-PC and high correlation (r = 0.74, 95% CI 0.64-0.82) with the Pain-PC. No floor or ceiling effects were observed. Cronbach's alpha was 0.97 (95% CI 0.96-0.98) for the ADL and 0.93 (95% CI 0.91-0.95) for the Sports subscales. The results supported the unidimensionality of the FAAM-Sports. Within the ADL subscale, 3 factors were identified, suggesting a 3-factor model for the FAAM overall. Results highlighted the inter-relationship of pain and physical function. Further research on longitudinal validity is needed.

Which Functional Tests and Self-Reported Questionnaires Can Help Clinicians Make Valid Return to Sport Decisions in Patients With Chronic Ankle Instability? A Narrative Review and Expert Opinion

Lateral ankle sprain is the most common injury in sports, with up to 40% of patients developing chronic ankle instability (CAI). One possible cause underlying this high rate of recurrence or feeling of giving way may be a premature return to sport (RTS). Indeed, except for time-based parameters, there are no specific criteria to guide clinicians in their RTS decisions in patients with CAI. A recent international consensus highlighted the relevance and importance of including patient-reported ankle function questionnaires combined with functional tests targeting ankle impairments in this population. Thus, the aim of this narrative review and expert opinion was to identify the most relevant functional performance tests and self-reported questionnaires to help clinicians in their RTS decision-making process following recurrent ankle sprains or surgical ankle stabilization. The PubMed (MEDLINE), PEDro, Cochrane Library and ScienceDirect databases were searched to identify published articles. Results showed that the single leg stance test on firm surfaces, the modified version of the star excursion balance test, the side hop test and the figure-of-8 test appeared to be the most relevant functional performance tests to target ankle impairments in patients with CAI. A combination of the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) and the Ankle Ligament Reconstruction-Return to Sport after Injury (ALR-RSI) questionnaires were the most relevant self-reported questionnaires to assess patient function in the context of CAI. Although these functional tests and questionnaires provide a solid foundation for clinicians to validate their RTS decisions in patient with CAI, objective scientific criteria with cut-off scores are still lacking. In addition to the proposed test cluster, an analysis of the context, in particular characteristics related to sports (e.g., fatigue, cognitive constraints), to obtain more information about the patient's risk of recurrent injury could be of added value when making a RTS decision in patients with CAI. In order to evaluate the strength of evertors under ecological conditions, it would also be interesting to assess the ability to control weight-bearing ankle inversion in a unipodal stance. Further studies are needed to assess the relevance of this proposed test cluster in RTS decision-making following lateral ankle sprain injury and CAI.

Structural validity of the foot and ankle outcome score for orthopaedic pathologies with Rasch Measurement Theory

BACKGROUND

The Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS) is one of the most frequently used patient-reported outcome measures for foot and ankle conditions. The aim is to test the structural validity of the Finnish version of the FAOS using Rasch Measurement Theory.

METHODS

FAOS scores were obtained from 218 consecutive patients who received operative treatment for foot and ankle conditions. The FAOS data were fitted into the Rasch model and person separation index (PSI) calculated.

RESULTS

All the five subscales provided good coverage and targeting. Three subscales presented unidimensional structure. Thirty-eight of the 42 items had ordered response category thresholds. Three of the 42 items had differential item functioning towards gender. All subscales showed sufficient fit to the Rasch model. PSI ranged from 0.73 to 0.94 for the subscales.

CONCLUSIONS

The Finnish version of the FAOS shows acceptable structural validity for assessing complaints in orthopaedic foot and ankle patients.

Longitudinal Validity and Minimal Important Change for the Modified Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS) in Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Patients

The lower extremity functional scale (LEFS) is a patient-reported outcome measure for lower extremity disorders. Aim of this study was to assess the longitudinal validity including responsiveness and test-retest reliability of the revised 15-item version, and to define the minimal important change (MIC) of the modified LEFS in a generic sample of orthopedic foot and ankle patients who underwent surgery. Responsiveness, effect size, and standardized response mean were measured by determining the score change between the baseline and 6 months administration of the LEFS from 156 patients. There was no significant difference between preoperative (median 78, interquartile range [IQR] 64.2-90.3) and postoperative (median 75.0, IQR 61.7-95.0) scores. Both effect size and standardized response mean were low (0.06 and 0.06, respectively). Test-retest reliability of the LEFS was satisfactory. Intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.85 (95% confidence interval 0.81-0.88). MIC value could not be estimated due to the lack of significant score change. The modified LEFS presented with relatively low longitudinal validity in a cohort of generic orthopedic foot and ankle patients. The findings of this study indicate that the modified LEFS might not be the optimal instrument in assessing the clinical change over time for these patients.

Minimal important change for Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS)

BACKGROUND

Although Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS) is a widely used patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) for foot and ankle conditions, research on its longitudinal validity is still needed. Minimal important change (MIC) values for the FAOS were determined using predictive modeling.

METHODS

Overall, 134 patients that underwent operative treatment for foot and ankle conditions were included. An anchor based predictive logistic modeling method was used for estimating the MIC values for the FAOS subscales after surgery.

RESULTS

Mean score changes in the improved and the unimproved groups were 17.7 and 0.43 points for Pain, 3.9 and -3.3 points for Symptoms, 21.3 and 1.8 points for Activities and daily living (ADL), 8.7 and -2.8 points for Sport, and 12.5 and -3.3 points for quality of life subscale, respectively. MIC was successfully determined to four out of five subgroups as follows: Pain 9.5 (94% CI -6.4 to 24.6); ADL 11.7 (95% CI -19.6 to 46.6); Sport (95% CI -10.4 to 15.4); QoL 5.0 (95% CI -2.6 to 12.9). The Symptoms subgroup presented with low MIC of 0.3 (95% CI -11.7 to 13.4) fitting to the measurement error.

CONCLUSION

ADL, Sports, Pain, and QoL subscales of the FAOS presented logical MIC values. The MIC can be further evaluated for specific conditions.