Responsiveness of the Foot Function Index,AOFAS Clinical Rating Systems,and SF-36 after Foot and Ankle Surgery

Abstract

Background:

There is uncertainty regarding which outcomes tools should be used to report the results of treatment for patients with foot and ankle disorders. This study compared the responsiveness of the Foot Function Index (FFI), American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) Clinical Rating Systems, and Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 (SF-36) in patients with foot and ankle surgery.

Methods:

Twenty-five patients were recruited at a tertiary referral foot and ankle practice. The mean age of the patient sample was 40 years (range 21 to 69) and 19 were women (76%). Thirteen patients (52%) had conditions affecting the ankle, hindfoot, or midfoot, while 12 patients (48%) had conditions affecting the forefoot. Patients completed packets preoperatively and 6-months postoperatively which included informed consent forms, the FFI, the AOFAS, and the SF-36 questionnaires. Standardized response means (SRM) and effect sizes (ES) were used as the measures of responsiveness and were calculated for the AOFAS scores, the three domains of the FFI, the eight SF-36 sub-scales, and the two SF-36 summary scales.

Results:

The standardized response mean (SRM) for the AOFAS scores was 1.10 and the effect size (ES) was 1.12. The SRM for the three FFI domains ranged from −0.39 to −0.83, while the ES ranged from −0.55 to −0.86. The SRM for the SF−36 ranged from 0.09 to 0.72 (ES ranged from 0.09 to 0.77) with the highest values occurring with the Bodily Pain sub-scale (SRM 0.72, ES 0.77) and Physical Component Summary scale (SRM 0.76, ES 0.68).

Conclusions:

This study demonstrated increased responsiveness of foot and ankle specific outcomes tools compared to the SF-36. However, the Bodily Pain sub-scale and Physical Component Summary scale of the SF-36 had levels of responsiveness approaching those of the FFI and AOFAS Systems after foot and ankle surgery. This suggests that the SF-36 may be used alone to monitor the outcomes in these patients without sacrificing adequate sensitivity to clinical change.

Keywords

AOFAS Clinical Rating Foot Function Index Outcomes Responsiveness

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Amadio

Silverstein

Ilstrup

Schleck

Jensen

: Outcome assessment for carpal tunnel surgery: The relative responsiveness of generic, arthritis-specific, disease-specific, and physical exam measures. J. Hand Surg. 21-A:338–346, 1996.

Beskin

Brage

Guyton

: Reproducibility of the Foot Function Index: A report of the AOFAS outcomes committee. Foot Ankle Int. In Press..

Beaton

Hogg-Johnson

Bombardier

: Evaluating changes in health status: reliability and responsiveness of five generic health status measures in workers with musculoskeletal disorders. J. Clin. Epidemiology. 50:79–93, 1997.

Beaton

Richards

: Assessing the reliability and responsiveness of 5 shoulder questionnaires. J. Shoulder Elbow Surg. 7:565–572, 1998.

Bessette

Sangha

Kuntz

: Comparative responsiveness of generic vs. disease-specific and weighted vs. unweighted health status measures in carpal tunnel syndrome. Med. Care. 36:491–502, 1998.

Budiman-Mak

Conrad

Roach

: The Foot Function Index: a measure of foot pain and disability. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 44:561–570, 1991.

Button

Pinney

: A meta-analysis of outcome rating scales in foot and ankle surgery: Is there a valid, reliable, and responsive instrument? Foot Ankle Int. 25:521–525, 2004.

Jaglol

Lakhani

Schatzker

: Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the lower extremity measure for patients with a hip fracture. J. Bone Joint Surg. 82-A:955–962, 2000.

Katz

Gelberman

Wright

Lew

Liang

: Responsiveness of self-reported and objective measures of disease severity in carpal tunnel syndrome. Med. Care 32:1127–1132, 1994.

10.

Kitaoka

Alexander

Adelaar

: Clinical rating systems for the ankle-hindfoot, midfoot, hallux, and lesser toes. Foot Ankle Int. 15:349–353, 1994.

11.

Kocher

Horan

Briggs

: Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Subjective Shoulder Scale in patients with shoulder instability, rotator cuff disease, and glenohumeral arthritis. J. Bone Joint Surg. 87-A:2006–2011.

12.

Kuyvenhoven

Gorter

Zuithoff

: The Foot Function Index with Verbal Rating Scales (FFI-5pt): A clinimetric evaluation and comparison with the original FFI. J. Rheum. 29:1023–1028, 2002.

13.

Liang

: Evaluating measurement responsiveness. J. Rheum. 22(6):1191–1192, 1995.

14.

Liang

Fossel

Larson

: Comparison of five health status instruments for orthopedic evaluation. Med. Care. 28:632–642, 1990.

15.

Lingard

Katz

Wright

Sledge

: Validity and responsiveness of the Knee Society Clinical Rating System in comparison with the SF-36 and WOMAC. J. Bone Joint Surg. 83-A:1856–1864, 2001.

16.

Lohr

Aaronson

Alonso

: Evaluating quality-of-life and health status instruments: Development of scientific review criteria. Clin. Ther. 18:979–992, 1996.

17.

Mangione

Goldman

Orav

: Health-related quality of life after elective surgery: Measurement of longitudinal changes. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 12:686–697, 1997.

18.

Martin

Engelberg

Agel

Swiontkowski

: Comparison of the Musculoskeletal Function Assessment questionnaire with the Short Form-36, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, and the Sickness Impact Profile Health-Status Measures. J. Bone Joint Surg. 79-A:1323–1335, 1997.

19.

Marx

Jones

Allen

: Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of four knee outcome scales for athletic patients. J. Bone Joint Surg. 83-A:1459–1469, 2001.

20.

McHorney

Ware

Raczek

: The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Med. Care. 31:247–263, 1993.

21.

Saag

Saltzman

Brown

Budiman-Mak

: The Foot Function Index for measuring rheumatoid arthritis pain: Evaluating side-to-side reliability. Foot Ankle Int. 17:506–510, 1996.

22.

Soderman

Malchau

; Validity and reliability of the Swedish WOMAC osteoarthritis index: a self-administered disease-specific questionnaire (WOMAC) versus generic instruments (SF-36 and NHP). Acta Orthop. Scand. 71:39–46, 2000.

23.

SooHoo

Samimi

Vyas

Botzler

: Evaluation of the validity of the Foot Function Index in measuring outcomes in patients with foot and ankle complaints. Foot Ankle Int. 27:38–42, 2006.

24.

SooHoo

Shuler

Fleming

: Evaluation of the validity of the AOFAS Clinical Rating Systems by correlation to the SF-36. Foot Ankle Int. 24:50–55, 2003.

25.

Tuttleman

Pillemer

Tilley

: A cross sectional assessment of health status instruments in patients with rheumatoid arthritis participating in a clinical trial. J Rheum. 24:1910–1915, 1997.

26.

Walsh

Hanscom

Lurie

Weinstein

: Is a condition-specific instrument for patients with low back pain/leg symptoms really necessary: The responsiveness of the Oswestry Disability Index, MODEMS, and the SF-36. Spine 28:607–615, 2003.

27.

Ware

: SF-36 Health Survey manual and interpretation guide, The Health Institute, Boston, 1993.

28.

Ware

Kosinski

Keller

: SF-36 Physical and mental health summary scales: A user's manual, The Health Institute, Boston, 1994.