Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery (Asia Pacific)

Register      Login

VOLUME 5 , ISSUE 2 ( December, 2018 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Predicting Treatment Success after Scarf Osteotomy for Hallux Valgus using The American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society and Short Form Health Survey Scores

Meng Zhu, Jerry Y Chen, Terry HL Teo, Kevin OT Koo, Inderjeet S Rikhraj

Keywords : Hallux valgus, Patient-reported outcome, Scarf osteotomy, The American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society- Health Management Information System, Threshold score, Treatment success

Citation Information : Zhu M, Chen JY, Teo TH, Koo KO, Rikhraj IS. Predicting Treatment Success after Scarf Osteotomy for Hallux Valgus using The American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society and Short Form Health Survey Scores. J Foot Ankle Surg Asia-Pacific 2018; 5 (2):59-63.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10040-1091

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-12-2018

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2018; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: Various hallux valgus corrective surgeries, including Scarf osteotomy, have demonstrated improvement in patients\' forefoot function and quality of life. However, no threshold values of these measures have been reported to define the success of surgery from the patients\' perspective. This study aims to define treatment success threshold values of The American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS)-Health Manage-ment Information System (HMIS) and Short Form (36) Health Survey (SF-36) Scores for patients underwent Scarf osteotomy (SO) for hallux valgus. Materials and methods: A retrospective analysis of patients who underwent scarf osteotomy between 2007 and 2013 was conducted. Patients were evaluated for AOFAS-HMIS, SF-36 score, satisfaction, and pain scoreatvarious time points. Treatment success was defined as a significant improvement in pain and satisfaction with surgery. Using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, threshold score for treatment success was defined as the cut-off value providing the largest sum of sensitivity and specificity. Results: A total of 360 and 345 patients completed assessments at 6-month and 2-year after surgery, with a success rate of 70.0% and 77.4%, respectively. The AOFAS-HMIS and physical component score (PCS) improved significantly atboth postoperative time points as compared to preoperatively. The ROC analyses revealed the excellent predictive value of AOFAS-HMIS for treatment success (AUC = 0.840 and 0.835). Conclusion: The American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society-Health Management Information System of 84 and above at 6-month, or 89 and above at 2-year after surgery can be used to define treatment success of OS for hallux valgus. Anincreasingly higher threshold is required to define treatment success with time.


PDF Share
  1. Saro C, Jensen I, Lindgren U, Fellander-Tsai L. Quality-of-life outcome after hallux valgus surgery. Quality of life research: an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation. 2007 Jun;16(5):731-738.
  2. Thordarson D, Ebramzadeh E, Moorthy M, Lee J, Rudicel S. Correlation of hallux valgus surgical outcome with AOFAS forefoot score and radiological parameters. Foot & ankle international. 2005 Feb;26(2):122-127.
  3. Johnson KA, Cofield RH, Morrey BF. Chevron osteotomy for hallux valgus. Clinical orthopaedics and related research. 1979 Jul-Aug(142):44-47.
  4. Mitchell CL, Fleming JL, Allen R, Glenney C, Sanford GA. Osteotomy-bunionectomy for hallux valgus. The Journal of bone and joint surgery American volume. 1958 Jan;40- a(1):41-58.
  5. McBride ED. The McBride bunion hallux valgus operation. The Journal of bone and joint surgery American volume. 1967 Dec;49(8):1675-83.
  6. Lapidus PW. The author's bunion operation from 1931 to 1959. Clinical orthopaedics. 1960;16:119-135.
  7. Mann RA, Rudicel S, Graves SC. Repair of hallux valgus with a distal soft-tissue procedure and proximal metatarsal osteotomy. A long-term follow-up. The Journal of bone and joint surgery American volume. 1992 Jan;74(1):124-129.
  8. Weil LS. OSfor correction of hallux valgus. Historical perspective, surgical technique, and results. Foot and ankle clinics. 2000 Sep;5(3):559-580.
  9. Hunt KJ, Hurwit D. Use of patient-reported outcome measures in foot and ankle research. The Journal of bone and joint surgery American volume. 2013 Aug 21;95(16):e118(1-9).
  10. Kitaoka HB, Alexander IJ, Adelaar RS, Nunley JA, Myerson MS, Sanders M. Clinical rating systems for the ankle-hindfoot, midfoot, hallux, and lesser toes. Foot & ankle international. 1994 Jul;15(7):349-353.
  11. Ibrahim T, Beiri A, Azzabi M, Best AJ, Taylor GJ, Menon DK. Reliability and validity of the subjective component of the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society clinical rating scales. The Journal of foot and ankle surgery. 2007 Mar-Apr;46(2):65-74.
  12. Baumhauer JF, Nawoczenski DA, DiGiovanni BF, Wilding GE. Reliability and validity of the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society Clinical Rating Scale: a pilot study for the hallux and lesser toes. Foot & ankle international. 2006 Dec;27(12):1014-1019.
  13. Dawson J, Doll H, Coffey J, Jenkinson C. Responsiveness and minimally important change for the Manchester-Oxford foot questionnaire (MOXFQ) compared with AOFAS and SF-36 assessments following surgery for hallux valgus. Osteoarthritis and cartilage / OARS, Osteoarthritis Research Society. 2007 Aug;15(8):918-931.
  14. SooHoo NF, Vyas R, Samimi D. Responsiveness of the foot function index, AOFAS clinical rating systems, and SF-36 after foot and ankle surgery. Foot & ankle international. 2006 Nov;27(11):930-934.
  15. Hays RD, Sherbourne CD, Mazel RM. The RAND 36-Item Health Survey 1.0. Health economics. 1993 Oct;2(3):217-227.
  16. Ware J, Kosinski M, Keller S. SF-36 Physical and Mental Health Summary Scales: A User's Manual. The Health Institute, Boston, MA, 1994.
  17. Vander Zee KI, Sanderman R, Heyink J. A comparison of two multidimensional measures of health status: the Nottingham Health Profile and the RAND 36-Item Health Survey 1.0. Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation. 1996 Feb;5(1):165-174.
  18. Vander Zee KI, Sanderman R, Heyink JW, de Haes H. Psychometric qualities of the RAND 36-Item Health Survey 1.0: a multidimensional measure of general health status. International journal of behavioral medicine. 1996;3(2):104-122.
  19. Hawker GA, Mian S, Kendzerska T, French M. Measures of adult pain: Visual Analog Scale for Pain (VAS Pain), Numeric Rating Scale for Pain (NRS Pain), McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), Chronic Pain Grade Scale (CPGS), Short Form-36 Bodily Pain Scale (SF-36 BPS), and Measure of Intermittent and Constant Osteoarthritis Pain (ICOAP). Arthritis care & research. 2011 Nov;63 Suppl 11:S240-52.
  20. Farrar JT, Young JP, Jr, LaMoreaux L, Werth JL, Poole RM. Clinical importance of changes in chronic pain intensity measured on an 11-point numerical pain rating scale. Pain. 2001 Nov;94(2):149-158.
  21. David W. Hosmer Jr. SL, Rodney X. Sturdivant. Applied Logistic Regression. 3rd ed: Wiley:New York; Apr 2013. 528 p.
  22. Youden WJ. Index for rating diagnostic tests. Cancer. 1950 Jan;3(1):32-35.
  23. Chen L, Lyman S, Do H, Karlsson J, Adam SP, Young E, et al. Validation of foot and ankle outcome score for hallux valgus. Foot & ankle international. 2012 Dec;33(12):1145-1155.
  24. Cook JJ, Cook EA, Rosenblum BI, Landsman AS, Roukis TS. Validation of the American College of Foot and Ankle Surgeons Scoring Scales. The Journal of foot and ankle surgery : official publication of the American College of Foot and Ankle Surgeons. 2011 Jul-Aug;50(4):420-429.
  25. Schrier JC, Palmen LN, Verheyen CC, Jansen J, Koeter S. Patient-reported outcome measures in hallux valgus surgery. A review of literature. Foot and ankle surgery : official journal of the European Society of Foot and Ankle Surgeons. 2015 Mar;21(1):11-15.
  26. Spruce MC, Bowling FL, Metcalfe SA. A longitudinal study of hallux valgus surgical outcomes using a validated patient centred outcome measure. Foot (Edinburgh, Scotland). 2011 Sep;21(3):133-137.
  27. King MT. A point of minimal important difference (MID): a critique of terminology and methods. Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research. 2011 Apr;11(2):171- 184.
  28. Chan HY, Chen JY, Zainul-Abidin S, Ying H, Koo K, Rikhraj IS. Minimal Clinically Important Differences for American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society Score in Hallux Valgus Surgery. Foot & ankle international. 2017 May;38(5):551-517.
  29. Schneider W, Knahr K. Surgery for hallux valgus. The expectations of patients and surgeons. International orthopaedics. 2001;25(6):382-385.
  30. Mickle KJ, Munro BJ, Lord SR, Menz HB, Steele JR. Crosssectional analysis of foot function, functional ability, and health-related quality of life in older people with disabling foot pain. Arthritis care & research. 2011 Nov;63(11):1592- 1598.
  31. McGuigan FX, Hozack WJ, Moriarty L, Eng K, Rothman RH. Predicting quality-of-life outcomes following total joint arthroplasty. Limitations of the SF-36 Health Status Questionnaire. The Journal of arthroplasty. 1995 Dec;10(6):742- 747.
  32. Chong A, Nazarian N, Chandrananth J, Tacey M, Shepherd D, Tran P. Surgery for the correction of hallux valgus: minimum five-year results with a validated patient-reported outcome tool and regression analysis. The bone & joint journal. 2015 Feb;97-b(2):208-214.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.