Advertisement

Outcome

  • J. Nienke AltinkEmail author
  • Jari Dahmen
  • Gwendolyn Vuurberg
  • Gino M. M. J. Kerkhoffs
Chapter

Abstract

A number of outcome measures are available to assess the impact of sports injuries of the foot and ankle. The following key items are essential when selecting the best available outcome measures:
  • History taking remains the most important tool and is essential to assess the symptoms, concerns, medical-, social-, and psychological history and to individualize treatment.

  • Validity, reliability, and repeatability are important psychometric properties to assess whether an outcome measure is suitable for its intended purpose.

  • Different tools are available to objectify findings during physical examination (goniometers, dynamometers).

  • To obtain an evaluation of the patient which is as complete as possible, it is recommended to combine a generic health measure, a foot- or ankle-specific health measure, and, if available, a disease-specific patient-reported outcome measure (PROM).

  • Monitoring of complications and recurrence rate of the particular injury is essential to adequately assess safety and effectiveness of any surgical technique.

Keywords

Outcome assessment Treatment outcome Psychometric properties Patient-reported outcome measures Complications and recurrence 

References

  1. 1.
    Agel J, Beskin JL, Brage M, Guyton GP, Kadel NJ, Saltzman CL, et al. Reliability of the foot function index:: a report of the AOFAS outcomes committee. Foot Ankle Int. 2005;26(11):962–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Budiman-Mak E, Conrad KJ, Roach KE. The foot function index: a measure of foot pain and disability. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991;44(6):561–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carcia CR, Martin RL, Drouin JM. Validity of the foot and ankle ability measure in athletes with chronic ankle instability. J Athl Train. 2008;43(2):179–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Coster MC, Bremander A, Rosengren BE, Magnusson H, Carlsson A, Karlsson MK. Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the self-reported foot and ankle score (SEFAS) in forefoot, hindfoot, and ankle disorders. Acta Orthop. 2014;85(2):187–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Halasi T, Kynsburg A, Tallay A, Berkes I. Development of a new activity score for the evaluation of ankle instability. Am J Sports Med. 2004;32(4):899–908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hale SA, Hertel J. Reliability and sensitivity of the foot and ankle disability index in subjects with chronic ankle instability. J Athl Train. 2005;40(1):35–40.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Martin RL, Irrgang JJ. A survey of self-reported outcome instruments for the foot and ankle. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2007;37(2):72–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Martin RL, Irrgang JJ, Lalonde KA, Conti S. Current concepts review: foot and ankle outcome instruments. Foot Ankle Int. 2006;27(5):383–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    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(7):349–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Holzer N, Salvo D, Marijnissen AC, Vincken KL, Ahmad AC, Serra E, et al. Radiographic evaluation of posttraumatic osteoarthritis of the ankle: the Kellgren-Lawrence scale is reliable and correlates with clinical symptoms. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2015;23(3):363–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hughes JL, Weber H, Willenegger H, Kuner EH. Evaluation of ankle fractures: non-operative and operative treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1979;138:111–9.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Berndt AL, Harty M. Transchondral fractures (osteochondritis dissecans) of the talus. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1959;41-A:988–1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dawson J, Doll H, Fitzpatrick R, Jenkinson C, Carr AJ. The routine use of patient reported outcome measures in healthcare settings. BMJ. 2010;340:c186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    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(6):473–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jenkinson C, Layte R, Jenkinson D, Lawrence K, Petersen S, Paice C, et al. A shorter form health survey: can the SF-12 replicate results from the SF-36 in longitudinal studies? J Public Health Med. 1997;19(2):179–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rabin R, de Charro F. EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med. 2001;33(5):337–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    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(11):968–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chen L, Lyman S, Do H, Karlsson J, Adam SP, Young E, et al. Validation of foot and ankle outcome score for hallux valgus. Foot Ankle Int. 2012;33(12):1145–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mani SB, Brown HC, Nair P, Chen L, Do HT, Lyman S, et al. Validation of the foot and ankle outcome score in adult acquired flatfoot deformity. Foot Ankle Int. 2013;34(8):1140–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Roos EM, Brandsson S, Karlsson J. Validation of the foot and ankle outcome score for ankle ligament reconstruction. Foot Ankle Int. 2001;22(10):788–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Golightly YM, Devellis RF, Nelson AE, Hannan MT, Lohmander LS, Renner JB, et al. Psychometric properties of the foot and ankle outcome score in a community-based study of adults with and without osteoarthritis. Arthritis Care Res. 2014;66(3):395–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Coster M, Karlsson MK, Nilsson JA, Carlsson A. Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of a self-reported foot and ankle score (SEFAS). Acta Orthop. 2012;83(2):197–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Coster MC, Rosengren BE, Bremander A, Brudin L, Karlsson MK. Comparison of the Self-reported Foot and Ankle Score (SEFAS) and the American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society Score (AOFAS). Foot Ankle Int. 2014;35(10):1031–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hiller CE, Refshauge KM, Bundy AC, Herbert RD, Kilbreath SL. The Cumberland ankle instability tool: a report of validity and reliability testing. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006;87(9):1235–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Domsic RT, Saltzman CL. Ankle osteoarthritis scale. Foot Ankle Int. 1998;19(7):466–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240(2):205–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Studdert DM, Thomas EJ, Burstin HR, Zbar BI, Orav EJ, Brennan TA. Negligent care and malpractice claiming behavior in Utah and Colorado. Med Care. 2000;38(3):250–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Stahel PF, Flierl MA, Smith WR, Morgan SJ, Victoroff MS, Clarke TJ, et al. Disclosure and reporting of surgical complications: a double-edged sword? Am J Med Qual. 2010;25(5):398–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ISAKOS 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Nienke Altink
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Jari Dahmen
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Gwendolyn Vuurberg
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Gino M. M. J. Kerkhoffs
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Orthopedic SurgeryAmsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Movement SciencesAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Academic Center for Evidence Based Sports Medicine (ACES)AmsterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Amsterdam Collaboration on Health and Safety in Sports (ACHSS), AMC/VUmc IOC Research CenterAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations