Abstract
There are numerous ankle and hindfoot scores in existence, which have been devised and used to assess surgical interventions. All have in common that there has been little or no work done to demonstrate their validity, reliability or sensitivity to change. Which score one chooses to use for the assessment of outcome will at present depend largely on personal preference.
We have undertaken a study to assess four of the most commonly used scores, those of Mazur (1978), Takakura (1990), AOFAS (1994) and Kofoed (1995) as well as a little used but well designed score, The Foot Function Index (1991).
A cohort of twenty patients who had undergone a unilateral total ankle replacement (STAR) for rheumatoid or osteoarthritis were assessed by a single observer. The time following operation ranged from six to 48 months. All completed the above scores as well as a SF36 questionnaire. Using the SF36 as a “Gold standard” the scores were compared, both in terms of their overall results and also more specifically in terms of subsections such as pain and function.
Our results, though not to be interpreted as validation, do give some rational basis for the choice of score to use in assessing total ankle replacements.
The abstracts were prepared by Mr J. L. Barrie. Correspondence should be addressed to Mr J. L. Barrie, BOFSS Editor, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Blackburn Royal Infirmary, Blackburn, Lancashire BB2 3LR.
