Top

International Orthopaedics

Published in:

01-02-2016 | Original Paper

Normative data for the American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society ankle-hindfoot, midfoot, hallux and lesser toes clinical rating system

Authors: Wolfgang Schneider, Stefan Jurenitsch

Published in: International Orthopaedics | Issue 2/2016

Abstract

Purpose

Despite some theoretical reservations, the AOFAS clinical rating system with its scales for ankle-hindfoot, midfoot, hallux and lesser toes is one of the most widely used assessment tools in foot and ankle surgery. This study was designed to generate age- and gender-related norm values for all four subscales.

Methods

Despite not being used in a self-administered manner, the AOFAS score underwent cross cultural adaptation to guarantee unrestricted comparability of data. A data pool was generated using the results of personal interviews and clinical examination of 625 individuals, including staff and visitors to our hospital, and excluding people scheduled for foot surgery or in after-treatment. These data served as a basis to calculate all four parts of the AOFAS clinical rating system.

Results

Mean value for the ankle-hindfoot scale was calculated as 91.6 points (±0.9 confidence interval), and 89.3 points for the midfoot scale (±1.0 CI), 88.3 for the hallux metatarsophalangeal-interphalangeal scale (± 0.9 CI) and 91.0 for the lesser metatarsophalangeal-interphalangeal scale (± 0.8 CI). Results showed a decrease with age in all four scales. Males showed better results than females. Individuals with previous surgery showed lower results in the respective score.

Conclusions

While lowered scoring results prior to surgery reflect the degree of restrictions due to pain, function and alignment problems, post-operative increases in clinical scoring should indicate return to age-related norm values. Our data calculated these norm values for the first time for all four AOFAS scales, giving a basis for better interpretation of published results in foot and ankle surgery. Our data showed and quantified the decrease of norm values with age, especially for hallux and lesser toes scores, as well as lower norm values for females and for individuals that had had surgery of the foot.

Level of Evidence: Level I, diagnostic study.

Guyton G (2001) Theoretical limitations of the AOFAS scoring systems: an analysis using Monte Carlo modeling. Foot Ankle Int 22:779–787PubMed

Schneider W, Knahr K (1998) Scoring in forefoot surgery. A statistical evaluation of single variables and rating systems. Acta Orthop Scand 69:498–504CrossRefPubMed

Schneider W, Knahr K (2005) Poor agreement between prospective and retrospective assessment of hallux surgery using the AOFAS Hallux Scale. Foot Ankle Int 26:1062–1066PubMed

SooHoo NF, Shuler M, Fleming LL, American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (2003) Evaluation of the validity of the AOFAS Clinical Rating Systems by correlation to the SF-36. Foot Ankle Int 24:50–55PubMed

SooHoo NF, Vyas R, Samimi D (2006) Responsiveness of the foot function index, AOFAS clinical rating systems, and SF-36 after foot and ankle surgery. Foot Ankle Int 27:930–934PubMed

Toolan BC, Wright Quinones VJ, Cunningham BJ, Brage ME (2001) An evaluation of the use of retrospectively acquired preoperative AOFAS clinical rating scores to assess surgical outcome after elective foot and ankle surgery. Foot Ankle Int 22:775–778PubMed

Kitaoka HB, Alexander IJ, Adelaar RS, Nunley JA, Myerson MS, Sanders M (1994) Clinical rating systems for the ankle-hindfoot, midfoot, hallux, and lesser toes. Foot Ankle Int 15:349–353CrossRefPubMed

Button G, Pinney S (2004) A meta-analysis of outcome rating scales in foot and ankle surgery: is there a valid, reliable, and responsive system? Foot Ankle Int 25:521–525CrossRefPubMed

Naal FD, Impellizzeri FM, Rippstein PF (2010) Which are the most frequently used outcome instruments in studies on total ankle arthroplasty? Clin Orthop Rel Res 468:815–826. doi:10.1007/s11999-009-1036-y CrossRef

10.

Ware JE, Kosinski M, Keller SD (1994) SF-36 physical and mental health summary scales: a user’s manual. The Health Institute, New England Medical Center, Boston

11.

Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB (2000) Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine 25:3186–3191. doi:10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014 CrossRefPubMed

12.

Schrier JC, Palmen LN, Verheyen CC, Jansen J, Koëter S (2015) Patient-reported outcome measures in hallux valgus surgery. A review of literature. Foot Ankle Surg 21:11–15. doi:10.1016/j.fas.2014.11.004 CrossRefPubMed

13.

Dufour AB, Casey VA, Golightly YM, Hannan MT (2014) Characteristics associated with hallux valgus in a population-based foot study of older adults. Arthritis Care Res 66:1880–1886. doi:10.1002/acr.22391 CrossRef

14.

Nix SE, Vicenzino BT, Smith MD (2012) Foot pain and functional limitation in healthy adults with hallux valgus: a cross-sectional study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 13:197–207. doi:10.1186/1471-2474-13-197 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

15.

Ferreira-Valente MA, Pais-Ribeiro JL, Jensen MP (2011) Validity of four pain intensity rating scales. Pain 152:2399–2404. doi:10.1016/j.pain.2011.07.005 CrossRefPubMed

16.

Menz HB, Gill TK, Taylor AW, Hill CL (2011) Age and gender differences in disabling foot pain using different definitions of the Manchester Foot Pain and Disability Index. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 12:243–252. doi:10.1186/1471-2474-12-243 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

17.

Hecht PJ, Lin TJ (2014) Hallux valgus. Med Clin North Am 98:227–232. doi:10.1016/j.mcna.2013.10.007 CrossRefPubMed

18.

Roddy E, Zhang W, Doherty M (2008) Prevalence and associations of hallux valgus in a primary care population. Arthritis Rheum 59:857–862. doi:10.1002/art.23709 CrossRefPubMed

19.

Ellert U, Bellach BM (1999) The SF-36 in the Federal Health Survey—description of a current normal sample. Gesundheitswesen 61(Suppl 2):S184–S190PubMed

20.

Hunt KJ, Hurwit D (2013) Use of patient-reported outcome measures in foot and ankle research. J Bone Joint Surg Am 95:e118. doi:10.2106/JBJS.L.01476 CrossRefPubMed

21.

Budiman-Mak E, Conrad KJ, Roach KE (1991) The Foot Function Index: a measure of foot pain and disability. J Clin Epidemiol 44:561–570CrossRefPubMed

22.

Chen L, Lyman S, Do H, Karlsson J, Adam SP, Young E, Deland JT, Ellis SJ (2012) Validation of foot and ankle outcome score for hallux valgus. Foot Ankle Int 33:1145–1155. doi:10.3113/FAI.2012.1145 CrossRefPubMed

23.

Cöster M, Karlsson MK, Nilsson J, Carlsson A (2012) Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of a self-reported foot and ankle score (SEFAS). Acta Orthop 83:197–203. doi:10.3109/17453674.2012.657579 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

Title: Normative data for the American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society ankle-hindfoot, midfoot, hallux and lesser toes clinical rating system
Authors: Wolfgang Schneider
Stefan Jurenitsch
Publication date: 01-02-2016
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: International Orthopaedics / Issue 2/2016
Print ISSN: 0341-2695
Electronic ISSN: 1432-5195
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-015-3066-2

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Normative data for the American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society ankle-hindfoot, midfoot, hallux and lesser toes clinical rating system

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 2/2016

Position of anterior cruciate ligament after single-bundle arthroscopic reconstruction

Section of the anterior cruciate ligament in the rabbit as animal model for osteoarthritis progression

Barbed sutures in total hip and knee arthroplasty: what is the evidence? A meta-analysis

Allergic reactions in arthroplasty: myth or serious problem?

Long-term results of surgically treated calcaneal fractures: an analysis with a minimum follow-up period of twenty years

Biomechanical comparison of transosseous re-fixation of the deep fibres of the distal radioulnar ligaments versus deep and superficial fibres: a cadaver study