Use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Foot and Ankle Surgery in Chile

Abstract

Objective To describe the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in foot and ankle surgery.

Materials and Methods A cross-sectional, descriptive study in which an original survey was developed and applied to assess the use of PROMs in Chile. Traumatologists dedicated to foot and ankle surgery were invited to participate.

Results A total of 73 out of 110 surgeons answered the survey; 75% of them have used PROMs at least once in their career, and 50% use them regularly. Mainly used for clinical research purposes (83%), PROMs are mostly applied by the clinical team (94%). We identified 15 different questionaries that are applied in our field, and the ones most used are the visual analogue scale (VAS), the Ankle-Hindfoot Scale of the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS), the 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), and the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS). The surveyed surgeons who do not use PROMs referred lack of information, time, and trained personal as the main limitations for their use.

Conclusion In total, 75% of the surveyed traumatologists dedicated to foot and ankle surgery in Chile have used PROMs in their clinical practice. There is a broad variety of questionaries applied and, to the best of our knowledge, the present is the first study to evaluate their application in our field.

Level of evidence: 4

Keywords

patient reported outcome measures - foot and ankle surgery

Publication History

Received: 06 August 2021

Accepted: 14 February 2022

Article published online:
24 June 2022

• Referencias

• 1 Sierevelt IN, Zwiers R, Schats W. et al. Measurement properties of the most commonly used Foot- and Ankle-Specific Questionnaires: the FFI, FAOS and FAAM. A systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2018; 26 (07) 2059-2073
• 2 Hunt KJ, Hurwit D. Use of patient-reported outcome measures in foot and ankle research. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2013; 95 (16) e118 (1–9)
• 3 Porter ME. What is value in health care?. N Engl J Med 2010; 363 (26) 2477-2481
• 4 Field J, Holmes MM, Newell D. PROMs data: can it be used to make decisions for individual patients? A narrative review. Patient Relat Outcome Meas 2019; 10: 233-241
• 5 Kitaoka HB, Meeker JE, Phisitkul P, Adams Jr SB, Kaplan JR, Wagner E. AOFAS Position Statement Regarding Patient-Reported Outcome Measures. Foot Ankle Int 2018; 39 (12) 1389-1393
• 6 Hunt KJ, Lakey E. Patient-Reported Outcomes in Foot and Ankle Surgery. Orthop Clin North Am 2018; 49 (02) 277-289
• 7 Lakey E, Hunt KJ. Patient-Reported Outcomes in Foot and Ankle Orthopedics. Foot Ankle Orthop 2019; 4 (03) 2473011419852930
• 8 Hawkins M, Elsworth GR, Osborne RH. Application of validity theory and methodology to patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs): building an argument for validity. Qual Life Res 2018; 27 (07) 1695-1710
• 9 Zwiers R, Weel H, Mallee WH, Kerkhoffs GMMJ, van Dijk CN. Ankle Platform Study Collaborative – Science of Variation Group. Large variation in use of patient-reported outcome measures: A survey of 188 foot and ankle surgeons. Foot Ankle Surg 2018; 24 (03) 246-251
• 10 Lau JTC, Mahomed NM, Schon LC. Results of an Internet survey determining the most frequently used ankle scores by AOFAS members. Foot Ankle Int 2005; 26 (06) 479-482
• 11 Makhni EC. Meaningful Clinical Applications of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Orthopaedics. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2021; 103 (01) 84-91
• 12 Ferrer-Peña R, Gil-Martínez A, Pardo-Montero J, Jiménez-Penick V, Gallego-Izquierdo T, La Touche R. Adaptation and validation of the Spanish version of the graded chronic pain scale. Reumatol Clin 2016; 12 (03) 130-138
• 13 Cervera-Garvi P, Ortega-Avila AB, Morales-Asencio JM, Cervera-Marin JA, Martin RR, Gijon-Nogueron G. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of Spanish version of The Foot and Ankle Ability Measures (FAAM-Sp). J Foot Ankle Res 2017; 10 (01) 39
• 14 Cruz-Díaz D, Lomas-Vega R, Osuna-Pérez MC, Hita-Contreras F, Fernández ÁD, Martínez-Amat A. The Spanish lower extremity functional scale: a reliable, valid and responsive questionnaire to assess musculoskeletal disorders in the lower extremity. Disabil Rehabil 2014; 36 (23) 2005-2011
• 15 Cruz-Díaz D, Hita-Contreras F, Lomas-Vega R, Osuna-Pérez MC, Martínez-Amat A. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Spanish version of the Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool (CAIT): an instrument to assess unilateral chronic ankle instability. Clin Rheumatol 2013; 32 (01) 91-98
• 16 Keller A, Wagner P, Izquierdo G. et al. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the VISA-A questionnaire for Chilean Spanish-speaking patients. J Orthop Surg Res 2018; 13 (01) 177
• 17 Gandek B, Ware JE, Aaronson NK, Apolone G, Bjorner JB, Brazier JE. et al. Cross-validation of item selection and scoring for the SF-12 Health Survey in nine countries: results from the IQOLA Project. International Quality of Life Assessment. J Clin Epidemiol 1998; 51 (11) 1171-1178
• 18 Vilagut G, Ferrer M, Rajmil L. et al. The Spanish version of the Short Form 36 Health Survey: a decade of experience and new developments. Gac Sanit 2005; 19 (02) 135-150
• 19 Pellegrini MJ, Poniachik R, Nuñez A, Escudero MI, Carcuro G, Cortes AA. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS) into Spanish (Chile). Foot Ankle Surg 2020; 26 (07) 790-796
• 20 Herdman M, Badia X, Berra S. EuroQol-5D: a simple alternative for measuring health-related quality of life in primary care. Aten Primaria 2001; 28 (06) 425-430
• 21 Guevara CJ, Cook C, Pietrobon R. et al. Validation of a Spanish version of the Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment Questionnaire (SMFA). J Orthop Trauma 2006; 20 (09) 623-629 , discussion 629–630, author reply 630
• 22 Garcés JBG, Winson I, Goldhahn S. et al. Reliability, validity and responsiveness of the Spanish Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ) in patients with foot or ankle surgery. Foot Ankle Surg 2016; 22 (01) 59-70
• 23 Olivares-Tirado P. Estado de Salud de Beneficiarios del Sistema de Salud de Chile: 2004–2005. Santiago, Chile:: Departamento de Estudios y Desarrollo, Superintendencia de ISAPRES;; 2006
• 24 Pinsker E, Daniels TR. AOFAS position statement regarding the future of the AOFAS Clinical Rating Systems. Foot Ankle Int 2011; 32 (09) 841-842