Validity and internal consistency of the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society Midfoot Scale in patients with Lisfranc injury

Outcome measures after foot and ankle surgery: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Research on outcomes measures after foot and ankle surgery is limited and methodological quality is not always assessed. We aimed to evaluate the measurement properties of patient-related outcome measures used in patients after foot- and ankle surgery.

METHODS

A Medline, Embase and Web of Sciences systematic review was performed including dates from 2000 up to April 2022. Inclusion criteria were foot and/or ankle surgery, described outcome(s) and it's assessed measurement properties. Methodological quality assessment was performed using the NOS-scale and the COSMIN-criteria.

RESULTS

143 studies (n = 18383) were included for final review, 82 about PROMs, 61 about clinical outcomes. A total of 23 different PROMs were evaluated, with a positive result in all measurement properties for the FAOS. There were positive results too for most measurement properties of the LEFS and the MOXFQ. Most clinical outcomes were radiological measures, with a high reliability for most measurements on plain radiographs and CT-scans.

CONCLUSIONS

To monitor foot and ankle outcome and evaluate treatment, we recommend the FAOS as the most suitable foot and ankle PROM.

LEVEL OF CLINICAL EVIDENCE

2.

Primary arthrodesis versus open reduction internal fixation for acute Lisfranc injuries: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The presence of a Lisfranc injury alone is considered a surgical indication in most patients. Indications for primary arthrodesis (PA) versus open reduction internal fixation (ORIF), however, is a topic of debate among surgeons. Conflicting data exists as to which treatment modality leads to improved patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), reoperations, and complications.

METHODS

Databases queried included PubMed, OVID Medline, Embase, SCOPUS, Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials, and clinicaltrials.gov from their dates of inception to 3/21/2024. Studies were incorporated into this analysis if they had included patients with acute Lisfranc injuries and compared outcomes between PA and ORIF. PROMs, reoperations, and complications were captured. Results were reported as effect sizes (ES) and odds ratios (OR).

RESULTS

There were eighteen studies included in this SRMA. Pooled data from 13/16 studies that reported AOFAS and VAS demonstrated better outcomes after PA compared to ORIF. AOFAS was 84.4 ± 28.5 after PA and 75.7 ± 29.0 after ORIF. VAS pain was 1.4 ± 2.7 after PA and 2.0 ± 3.3 after ORIF. There were 3 more studies that reported other PROMs and favored ORIF. Return to preinjury activity was 79.2% after PA and 65.7% after ORIF. The prevalence of midfoot post-traumatic arthritis was reported as 2.8% after PA and 17.3% after ORIF. Adjacent joint arthritis was not reported in the current literature. After PA, 77/438 (17.6%) patients underwent reoperations, and after ORIF, 514/802 (64.1%) patients underwent reoperations. After excluding planned hardware removals, relative rates of unplanned reoperations were 14.7% (n = 62/423) after PA and 38.3% (n = 181/472) after ORIF (p < 0.001). Non-operative complications occurred in 43/406 (10.6%) patients after PA and 95/753 (12.6%) patients after ORIF (p = 0.31). Meta-analyses demonstrated that AOFAS (ES: 0.41, CI 0.13, 0.68, p = 0.004) and VAS pain (ES: - 0.53, CI - 0.91, - 0.15, p = 0.006), and return to activity rates (OR: 2.71, CI 1.43, 6.39) favored PA over ORIF. Post-traumatic arthritis (OR: 0.29, CI 0.11, 0.77) and reoperations (OR: 0.16, CI 0.06, 0.44) were less prevalent after PA compared to ORIF.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review and meta-analysis suggested that PA provides better short- and medium-term outcomes in the setting of Lisfranc injuries when compared to ORIF with rigid fixation. Due to a lack of available clinical studies, the long-term effects of PA are largely unknown but may include increased adjacent joint arthritis, pain, and need for further surgery-especially in young and active patients. Future research demonstrating long-term outcomes would be helpful in clinical decision making.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

I.

Evaluating the Validity and Reliability of the Persian Version of American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society Midfoot Scale

BACKGROUND

The use of a valid and reliable outcome scoring system is crucial for evaluating the result of different treatment interventions. The aims of this study were to translate and culturally adapt the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) midfoot scoring system into the Persian language and assess its validity and reliability.

METHOD

In total, 57 patients with midfoot injuries were enrolled. Forward-backward translation and cultural adaptation methods were used to develop the Persian version of AOFAS midfoot scoring system. Reliability and internal consistency were assessed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Cronbach's alpha. The discriminant and convergent validities of the scoring system were assessed using the total score of the mental and physical component of SF-36.

RESULTS

The mean age of the participants was 46.2 ± 16.3 years. The intra-observer reliability of the totals core of the Persian version of AOFAS midfoot scoring system was 0.96 (confidence interval [CI]: 0.92-0.97) and the inter-observer reliability of the scoring system was 0.90 (CI: 0.86-0.95). The Persian version of AOFAS midfoot scoring system had acceptable convergence with physical component scoring system of SF-36 and its subscales (0.57); moreover, it had acceptable discriminant validity with the mental component of SF-36 and its subscales (0.36).

CONCLUSION

The Persian version of AOFAS midfoot is a reliable and valid instrument and could be used by Persian language clinicians and researchers.

LEVEL OF CLINICAL EVIDENCE

3.

Open Reduction Internal Fixation vs Primary Arthrodesis for Displaced Lisfranc Injuries: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

There is no consensus whether the primary surgical method should be open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) or primary arthrodesis (PA) for Lisfranc injuries. The aim of our randomized controlled trial was to compare ORIF and PA for displaced Lisfranc injuries.

METHODS

This study was a national multicenter randomized controlled trial. Altogether 43 displaced Lisfranc injuries were enrolled in this trial. The primary outcome measure was Visual Analogue Scale Foot and Ankle (VAS-FA) at a 24-months follow-up. The secondary outcome measures were VAS-FA pain, function, and other complaints subscales and the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) Midfoot Scale. All outcomes were measured at 6, 12, and 24 months. We were unable to reach the planned sample size of 60 patients; thus, the study remains underpowered.

RESULTS

The mean VAS-FA Overall score in the ORIF group was 86.5 (95% CI 77.9, 95.1) and 80.1 (95% CI 72.0, 88.1) in the PA group at the 24-month follow-up. We did not find eligible evidence of a difference in VAS-FA Overall scores (mean between-group difference 6.5 [95% CI -5.3, 18.2], Cohen d = 0.100).

CONCLUSION

We did not find evidence of a difference in VAS-FA between ORIF and PA in patients with displaced Lisfranc injuries, and thus both are viable options for the initial surgical method. The trial is underpowered; however, the data may be included in a meta-analysis of similarly designed randomized controlled trials.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02953067 24 October 2016.

Rehabilitation effect of standing bed combined with early anti-gravity running table training on ankle fracture

To explore the clinical effect of standing bed combined with early anti-gravity running table training in the healing and functional recovery of anterior rotation external rotation ankle fractures. Fifty-two patients with ankle fractures of degree III or degree IV of PER admitted to Pingle Orthopaedic and Traumatology Hospital of Shenzhen City between September 2021 and January 2023 were selected for observation, and they were divided into 26 cases in each group according to the method of randomised numerical table into the control group and the observation group. The patients in the control group started the routine rehabilitation treatment on the 1st day after operation, and in the 0-2 weeks after operation, the affected limb was elevated and ankle pump training was carried out; in the 3-6 weeks after operation, joint mobility training, strength training and soft tissue release were carried out; and in the 6-8 weeks after operation, weight-bearing training was increased. The observation group added standing bed training on the 7th postoperative day and anti-gravity running table training on the 28th postoperative day on the basis of the treatment protocol of the control group. Bone density, ankle mobility and American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) ankle-hindfoot scores, pain, ankle mobility and swelling evaluations were compared between the 2 groups before and after 8 weeks of treatment, and the quality scores of bone scabs were compared between the 2 groups after 4 weeks of treatment. There was no statistical significance in the comparison of the items between the two groups before treatment (all P > 0.05), and the difference in the bone scab quality score was not statistically significant after 4 weeks of treatment (P > 0.05), and after 8 weeks of treatment, the bone scab quality score, bone mineral density and AOFAS scores, pain, ankle mobility, and evaluations were higher than those of the control group (all P < 0.05), and there was no significant difference in the degree of swelling (P > 0.05). Standing bed combined with early anti-gravity running table training applied to postoperative patients with PER III or IV degree ankle fracture can reduce the degree of pain and improve the ankle joint function.

Does temporary bridge plate fixation preserve joint motion after an unstable Lisfranc injury?

BACKGROUND

Recently, temporary bridge plate fixation has gained popularity in the treatment of unstable Lisfranc injuries. The technique aims to reduce the risk of posttraumatic osteoarthritis, and after plate removal, the goal is to regain joint mobility. Here we explore marker-based radiostereometric analysis (RSA) to measure motion in the 1st tarsometatarsal (TMT) joint and asses the radiological outcome in patients treated with this surgical technique.

METHOD

Ten patients with an unstable Lisfranc injury were included. All were treated with a dorsal bridge plate over the 1st TMT joint and primary arthrodesis of the 2nd and 3rd TMT joints. The plate was removed four months postoperatively. Non- and weight-bearing RSA images were obtained one and five years postinjury to assess joint mobility and signs of osteoarthritis.

RESULTS

Detectable 1st TMT joint motion was observed in 2/10 patients after one year, and 6/9 patients after five years. At the final follow-up, mean 1st TMT dorsiflexion was 2.0°. Radiologically, the incidence of posttraumatic osteoarthritis was present in 4/10 patients after one year, and 5/9 patients after five years. All patients had observed TMT joint stability throughout the follow-up period.

CONCLUSION

Preservation of joint motion can be achieved with a temporary bridge plate fixation over the 1st TMT joint.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prospective cohort study/Therapeutically level IV.

Foot Assessment Clinical Scales in Charcot-Marie-Tooth Patients: A Scoping Review

Introduction

Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease (CMT) is a slow and progressive peripheral motor sensory neuropathy frequently associated with the cavo-varus foot deformity. We conducted a scoping review on the clinical scales used to assess foot deviations in CMT patients and analyzed their metric properties.

Evidence Acquisition

A first search was conducted to retrieve all scales used to assess foot characteristics in CMT patients from the Medline, Web of Science, Google Scholar, Cochrane, and PEDro databases. A second search was conducted to include all studies that evaluated the metric properties of such identified scales from the same databases. We followed the methodologic guidelines specific for scoping reviews and used the PICO framework to set the eligibility criteria. Two independent investigators screened all papers.

Evidence Synthesis

The first search found 724 papers. Of these, 41 were included, using six different scales: "Foot Posture Index" (FPI), "Foot Function Index", "Maryland Foot Score", "American Orthopedic Foot & Ankle Society's Hindfoot Evaluation Scale", "Foot Health Status Questionnaire", Wicart-Seringe grade. The second search produced 259 papers. Of these, 49 regarding the metric properties of these scales were included. We presented and analyzed the properties of all identified scales in terms of developmental history, clinical characteristics (domains, items, scores), metric characteristics (uni-dimensionality, inter- and intra-rater reliability, concurrent validity, responsiveness), and operational characteristics (normative values, manual availability, learning time and assessors' characteristics).

Conclusions

Our results suggested the adoption of the six-item version of the FPI scale (FPI-6) for foot assessment in the CMT population, with scoring provided by Rasch Analysis. This scale has demonstrated high applicability in different cohorts after a short training period for clinicians, along with good psychometric properties. FPI-6 can help health professionals to assess foot deformity in CMT patients over the years.

Outcome after nonoperative treatment of stable Lisfranc injuries. A prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome after nondisplaced and stable Lisfranc injuries.

METHODS

26 patients with injuries to the Lisfranc joint complex detected on CT scans, but without displacement were tested to be stable using a fluoroscopic stress test. The patients were immobilized in a non-weightbearing short leg cast for 6 weeks. The final follow-up was 55 (IQR 53-60) months after injury.

RESULTS

All the Lisfranc injuries were confirmed to be stable on follow-up weightbearing radiographs at a minimum of 3 months after injury. Median American Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) midfoot score at 1-year follow-up was 89 (IQR 84-97) and at final follow-up 100 (IQR 90-100); The AOFAS score continued to improve after 1-year (P=.005). The median visual analog scale (VAS) for pain was 0 (IQR 0-0) at the final follow-up. One patient had radiological signs of osteoarthritis at 1-year follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Stable Lisfranc injuries treated nonoperatively had an excellent outcome in this study with a median follow-up of 55 months. The AOFAS score continued to improve after 1 year.

Lisfranc injuries: fix or fuse? : a systematic review and meta-analysis of current literature presenting outcome after surgical treatment for Lisfranc injuries

AIMS

This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to compare open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with primary arthrodesis (PA) in the treatment of Lisfranc injuries, regarding patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and risk of secondary surgery. The aim was to conclusively determine the best available treatment based on the most complete and recent evidence available.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, and SPORTDiscus. Additionally, ongoing trial registers and reference lists of included articles were screened. Risk of bias (RoB) and level of evidence were assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tools and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. The random and fixed-effect models were used for the statistical analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 20 studies were selected for this review, of which 12 were comparative studies fit for meta-analysis, including three randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This resulted in a total analyzed population of 392 patients treated with ORIF and 249 patients treated with PA. The mean differences between the two groups in American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS), VAS, and SF-36 scores were -7.41 (95% confidence interval (CI) -13.31 to -1.51), 0.77 (95% CI -0.85 to 2.39), and -1.20 (95% CI -3.86 to 1.46), respectively.

CONCLUSION

This is the first study to find a statistically significant difference in PROMs, as measured by the AOFAS score, in favour of PA for the treatment of Lisfranc injuries. However, this difference may not be clinically relevant, and therefore drawing a definitive conclusion requires confirmation by a large prospective high-quality RCT. Such a study should also assess cost-effectiveness, as cost considerations might be decisive in decision-making. Level of Evidence: I Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(10):842-849.

Temporary Bridge Plating vs Primary Arthrodesis of the First Tarsometatarsal Joint in Lisfranc Injuries: Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Unstable Lisfranc injuries are best treated with anatomic reduction and stable fixation. There are controversies regarding which type of stabilization is best. In the present study, we compared primary arthrodesis of the first tarsometatarsal (TMT) joint to temporary bridge plating in unstable Lisfranc injuries.

METHODS

Forty-eight patients with Lisfranc injuries were included and followed for 2 years. Twenty-four patients were randomized to primary arthrodesis (PA) of the medial 3 TMT joints, whereas 24 patients were randomized to temporary bridge plate (BP) over the first TMT joint and primary arthrodesis of the second and third TMT joints. The main outcome parameter was the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) midfoot scale and the secondary outcome parameters were the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) and visual analog scale for pain (VAS pain). Computed tomography (CT) scans pre- and postoperatively were obtained. Radiographs were obtained at follow-ups. Pedobarographic examination was performed at the 2-year follow-up. Twenty-two of 24 patients in the PA and 23/24 in the BP group completed the 2-year follow-up.

RESULTS

The mean AOFAS midfoot score 2 years postoperatively was 89 (SD 9) in the PA group and 85 (SD 15) in the BP group (P = .32). There were no significant differences between the groups with regard to SF-36 or VAS pain scores. The alignment of the first metatarsal was better in the BP group than in the PA group measured by the anteroposterior Meary angle (P = .04). The PA group had a reduced peak pressure under the fifth metatarsal (P = .047). In the BP group, 11/24 patients had radiologic signs of osteoarthritis in the first TMT joint.

CONCLUSION

Both treatment groups had good outcome scores. The first metatarsal was better aligned in the BP group; however, there was a high incidence of radiographic osteoarthritis in this group.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic level I, prospective randomized controlled study.