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.
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.
Authors: Joost C M Schrier; Leonieke N Palmen; Cees C P M Verheyen; Justus Jansen; Sander Koëter Journal: Foot Ankle Surg Date: 2014-11-29 Impact factor: 2.705
Authors: Alyssa B Dufour; Virginia A Casey; Yvonne M Golightly; Marian T Hannan Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Lan Chen; Stephen Lyman; Huong Do; Jon Karlsson; Stephanie P Adam; Elizabeth Young; Jonathan T Deland; Scott J Ellis Journal: Foot Ankle Int Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 2.827
Authors: Chenggong Wang; Dengjie Yu; Can Xu; Mingqing Li; Da Zhong; Long Wang; Hua Liu; Yusheng Li Journal: Am J Transl Res Date: 2021-06-15 Impact factor: 4.060
Authors: A Siebe de Boer; Roderik J C Tjioe; Fleur Van der Sijde; Duncan E Meuffels; Pieter T den Hoed; Cornelis H Van der Vlies; Wim E Tuinebreijer; Michael H J Verhofstad; Esther M M Van Lieshout Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-08-03 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: A Siebe De Boer; Duncan E Meuffels; Cornelis H Van der Vlies; P Ted Den Hoed; Wim E Tuinebreijer; Michael H J Verhofstad; Esther M M Van Lieshout Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-11-14 Impact factor: 2.692