Meta-Analysis: Functional Outcome of ORIF Versus Primary Subtalar Arthrodesis of Sanders Type II and Type III Calcaneal Fractures

Four rating systems were developed by the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society to provide a standard method of reporting clinical status of the ankle and foot. The systems incorporate both subjective and objective factors into numerical scales to describe function, alignment, and pain.

This study evaluates the criterion validity of the subjective component of the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) clinical rating scales by correlating scores obtained with these rating scales to scores obtained with the Foot Function Index (FFI) in patients with foot and ankle conditions. To date, the AOFAS scoring scales have not been shown to provide valid information despite their popularity. The FFI, on the other hand, has previously been shown to provide valid information in regard to conditions affecting the foot and ankle. A moderately strong inverse criterion validity correlation (Pearson correlation coefficient = -0.68) was shown when preoperative patients were administered both the AOFAS and FFI questionnaires, and the resultant scores were compared. Test-retest reliability measurements showed no significant difference (P = .27) between preoperative AOFAS scale scores measured at least 2 weeks apart. Construct validity was shown (P = .006) when dependent preoperative and postoperative (at least 3 months) AOFAS scale scores were compared, indicative of the clinical rating scales' ability to discriminate and predict quality of life related to foot and ankle conditions. The moderate level of correlation, satisfactory degree of reliability, and responsiveness (ability to distinguish differences between preoperative and postoperative conditions in the same patient) observed in this study suggest that the subjective component of the AOFAS clinical rating scales provides quality-of-life information that conveys acceptable validity regarding conditions affecting the foot and ankle.

We conducted a prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter trial to compare operative with nonoperative treatment of displaced intra-articular calcaneal fractures. Eighty-two patients who presented to five trauma centers from 1994 to 1998 with an intra-articular calcaneal fracture with ≥2 mm of displacement (as verified by computed tomography) were randomized to operative or nonoperative treatment. Independent observers followed the two groups radiographically and clinically at one year and eight to twelve years. The primary outcome measures were a visual analog scale (VAS) for pain and function and the self-administrated Short Form (SF)-36 general health outcome questionnaire. The secondary outcome measures were residual pain evaluated with a VAS, the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) scale, and the Olerud-Molander (OM) scale. Forty-two patients in the operative treatment group and forty in the nonoperative group were included. The two groups were comparable with respect to age, sex, and fracture types. Seventy-six patients were available for follow-up at one year and fifty-eight at eight to twelve years. The primary and secondary outcome measures did not differ significantly between the two treatment groups at one year of follow-up. At eight to twelve years of follow-up, there was a trend toward better scores on the patient-reported primary VAS score for pain and function (p = 0.07) and the physical component of the SF-36 (p = 0.06) in the operative group. The prevalence of radiographically evident posttraumatic subtalar arthritis was lower in the operative group (risk reduction, 41%). Operative treatment was not superior in managing displaced intra-articular calcaneal fractures at one year of follow-up but appeared to have some benefits at eight to twelve years. Operative treatment was associated with a higher risk of complications but a reduced prevalence of posttraumatic arthritis evident on follow-up radiographs. Therapeutic level II. See instructions for authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.