Sultan Aldebeyan1, Hani Sinno2, Mohammed Alotaibi3, Asim M Makhdom4, Reggie C Hamdy5. 1. Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, Shriners Hospital for Children, Montreal Children Hospital, McGill University, 1003, Boulevard Décarie, Montréal, Québec H4A 0A9, Canada; National Neuroscience Institute, King Fahad Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Electronic address: Sultan.aldebeyan@gmail.com. 2. Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Montreal Children's Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec H4A 3J1, Canada. 3. Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, Shriners Hospital for Children, Montreal Children Hospital, McGill University, 1003, Boulevard Décarie, Montréal, Québec H4A 0A9, Canada. Electronic address: mohammedota8@gmail.com. 4. Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, Shriners Hospital for Children, Montreal Children Hospital, McGill University, 1003, Boulevard Décarie, Montréal, Québec H4A 0A9, Canada; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Electronic address: makhdomas@hotmail.com. 5. Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, Shriners Hospital for Children, Montreal Children Hospital, McGill University, 1003, Boulevard Décarie, Montréal, Québec H4A 0A9, Canada. Electronic address: rhamdy@shriners.mcgill.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite being a common condition, there are no objective measures in the literature to reflect the burden of pes planus on affected individuals. Our primary objective was to evaluate this burden by recruiting a sample from the general population using validated utility outcome measures. METHODS: Participants were recruited online and filled a questionnaire to help measure the health burden of pes planus. Three recognized utility outcome scores were used to compare the health burden of monocular blindness, binocular blindness, and pes planus. These included the standard gamble (SG), time trade-off (TTO), and visual analogue score (VAS). Paired t test, independent t test, and linear regression were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Ninety-two participants were included in the final analysis. The utility outcome scores (VAS, TTO, SG) for pes planus were 73±17, 0.90±0.08, and 0.88±0.12, respectively. The linear regression analysis showed that age was inversely proportional to the time trade-off. However, race, educational level, and income were not significant predictors of utility outcome score for pes planus. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that the perceived burden of living with pes planus is comparable to living with some debilitating conditions. Our participants were willing to sacrifice 3.6 years of life, and have a procedure with a theoretical 12% mortality risk to attain perfect health.
BACKGROUND: Despite being a common condition, there are no objective measures in the literature to reflect the burden of pes planus on affected individuals. Our primary objective was to evaluate this burden by recruiting a sample from the general population using validated utility outcome measures. METHODS:Participants were recruited online and filled a questionnaire to help measure the health burden of pes planus. Three recognized utility outcome scores were used to compare the health burden of monocular blindness, binocular blindness, and pes planus. These included the standard gamble (SG), time trade-off (TTO), and visual analogue score (VAS). Paired t test, independent t test, and linear regression were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Ninety-two participants were included in the final analysis. The utility outcome scores (VAS, TTO, SG) for pes planus were 73±17, 0.90±0.08, and 0.88±0.12, respectively. The linear regression analysis showed that age was inversely proportional to the time trade-off. However, race, educational level, and income were not significant predictors of utility outcome score for pes planus. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that the perceived burden of living with pes planus is comparable to living with some debilitating conditions. Our participants were willing to sacrifice 3.6 years of life, and have a procedure with a theoretical 12% mortality risk to attain perfect health.