Generalizability and Validation of PROMIS Scores to Predict Surgical Success in Foot and Ankle Patients: A Tale of Two Academic Centers

Introduction/Purpose: Patient-reported outcomes are advancing clinical care by improving patient satisfaction and engagement. A recent publication reported preoperative PROMIS scores to be highly predictive in selecting patients who would and would not benefit from foot and ankle (F/A) surgery. Although this publication used the data from 5 fellowship trained foot and ankle surgeons at one institution, the generalizability to other patient populations and geographic areas is unknown. This validation study assesses the pre-operative PROMIS physical function (PF) and pain interference (PI) t-scores as a predictor of post-operative success from a separate geographic area

Validation and Generalizability of Preoperative PROMIS Scores to Predict Postoperative Success in Foot and Ankle Patients

Background: A recent publication reported preoperative Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Instrumentation System (PROMIS) scores to be highly predictive in identifying patients who would and would not benefit from foot and ankle surgery. Their applicability to other patient populations is unknown. The aim of this study was to assess the validation and generalizability of previously published preoperative PROMIS physical function (PF) and pain interference (PI) threshold t scores as predictors of postoperative clinically meaningful improvement in foot and ankle patients from a geographically unique patient population. Methods: Prospective PROMIS PF and PI scores of consecutive patient visits to a tertiary foot and ankle clinic were obtained between January 2014 and November 2016. Patients undergoing elective foot and ankle surgery were identified and PROMIS values obtained at initial and follow-up visits (average, 7.9 months). Analysis of variance was used to assess differences in PROMIS scores before and after surgery. The distributive method was used to estimate a minimal clinically important difference (MCID). Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to determine thresholds for achieving and failing to achieve MCID. To assess the validity and generalizability of these threshold values, they were compared with previously published threshold values for accuracy using likelihood ratios and pre- and posttest probabilities, and the percentages of patients identified as achieving and failing to achieve MCID were evaluated using χ2 analysis. Results: There were significant improvements in PF (P \u3c .001) and PI (P \u3c .001) after surgery. The area under the curve for PF (0.77) was significant (P \u3c .01), and the thresholds for achieving MCID and not achieving MCID were similar to those in the prior study. A significant proportion of patients (88.9%) identified as not likely to achieve MCID failed to achieve MCID (P = .03). A significant proportion of patients (84.2%) identified as likely to achieve MCID did achieve MCID (P \u3c .01). The area under the curve for PROMIS PI was not significant. Conclusions: PROMIS PF threshold scores from published data were successful in classifying patients from a different patient and geographic population who would improve with surgery. If functional improvement is the goal, these thresholds could be used to help identify patients who will benefit from surgery and, most important, those who will not, adding value to foot and ankle health care. Level of evidence: Level II, Prospective Comparative Stud

Foot and ankle tendoscopy: evidence-based recommendations

The purpose of this study was to provide a comprehensive review of the current literature on tendoscopy of the foot and ankle and assign an evidence-based grade of recommendation for or against intervention. A comprehensive review of the literature was performed on May 26, 2013, using the PubMed, Cochrane, and Scopus databases. Studies focusing on the use of foot and ankle tendoscopy were isolated, and these articles were then reviewed and assigned a Level of Evidence (I through V). The literature was then analyzed, and a grade of recommendation was assigned for tendoscopy of the tendons of the foot and ankle on which the procedure is generally performed. There is weak evidence (grade Cf) to support the use of tendoscopy on the Achilles, flexor hallucis longus, and peroneal tendons. Insufficient evidence (grade I) exists to assign a grade of recommendation for tendoscopy of the tibialis posterior, tibialis anterior, flexor digitorum longus, extensor hallucis longus, and extensor digitorum longus. A comprehensive review of the literature on foot and ankle tendoscopy has shown predominantly Level IV and V studies, with just 1 Level II study. On the basis of the current literature available, there is poor evidence (grade Cf) in support of Achilles, flexor hallucis longus, and peroneal tendoscopy for the common indications. There is insufficient evidence to make a recommendation (grade I) for or against tendoscopy of the tibialis posterior, tibialis anterior, flexor digitorum longus, extensor hallucis longus, and extensor digitorum longus. Although current literature suggests that tendoscopy is a safe and effective procedure, original scientific articles of higher levels of evidence are needed before a stronger recommendation can be assigned. Level IV, systematic review of Level II, IV, and V studie

Technique, Complications, and Mid-Term Results of Hindfoot Arthrodesis with a Posterior Blade Plate

Category: Ankle Arthritis Introduction/Purpose: Previous hindfoot surgeries present a unique challenge in performing hindfoot arthrodesis. The use of a blade plate construct is widely accepted, however there is limited data supporting the use of a posterior approach to blade plate arthrodesis. The purpose of this study was to (1) describe demographics of patients who underwent posterior hindfoot arthrodesis using a blade plate, (2) describe our surgical technique, (3) discuss outcomes, and (4) compare patients with and without complications. Methods: Between December 2001 and July 2014, 42 patients underwent hindfoot arthrodesis using a posterior blade plate and 40 patients were included in this study. Demographic data including age, gender, body mass index, smoking status, and comorbidities were analyzed. Surgical data including indication for the surgery, previous surgical treatment, and additional surgical procedures were reviewed. Weight-bearing radiographs were used to assess the fusion rate. Clinic and surgery notes were reviewed for possible intraoperative, perioperative, and postoperative complications. Univariate analysis was performed to compare patients who experienced complications with those who did not. There were 27 male and 13 female patients with a mean age of 56.4 ± 13.4 years. Twenty-eight patients had a tibiotalocalcaneal arthrodesis in a primary (n=6), primary staged (n=10), revision (n=9), or revision staged (n=3) setting. Eleven patients had ankle arthrodesis (primary n=7, revision n=4). The latest follow-up averaged 46.5 ± 27.5 months (range, 13.7-137.2 months). Results: Patients had a median of two previous hindfoot or ankle surgeries (range, 0-9 surgeries). Thirty-three of 40 (82%) procedures fused at an average of 24.4 ± 21.2 weeks. Four patients had a delayed osseous union. Seven patients had a nonunion, including ankle (n=3), subtalar (n=3), and both (n=1) joints. Patient groups with, and without primary solid osseous unions were comparable in terms of demographic data and surgical details. Eighteen major and eight minor complications were observed. Patients with or without complications were comparable in terms of demographic data and surgical characteristics. In total six patients (15%) underwent below knee amputation due to unsatisfactory results. Conclusion: Indications for hindfoot arthrodesis using posterior blade plate fixation include a diverse patient population. These surgeries may be performed as primary, revision, primary staged, or revision staged procedures. Most of the patients in our cohort had previous ankle/hindfoot surgeries. The fusion rate is lower than in primary hindfoot arthrodesis as reported in the current literature. The complications rate is high

Generalizability and Validation of PROMIS Scores to Predict Surgical Success in Foot and Ankle Patients

Category: Patient Reported Outcomes Introduction/Purpose: Patient-reported outcomes are advancing clinical care by improving patient satisfaction and engagement. A recent publication reported preoperative PROMIS scores to be highly predictive in selecting patients who would and would not benefit from foot and ankle (F/A) surgery. Although this publication used the data from 5 fellowship trained foot and ankle surgeons at one institution, the generalizability to other patient populations and geographic areas is unknown. This validation study assesses the pre-operative PROMIS physical function (PF) and pain interference (PI) t-scores as a predictor of post-operative success from a separate geographic area. Methods: Prospective consecutive patient visits to a multi-surgeon tertiary F/A clinic were obtained between 1/2014-11/2016 resulting in 18,565 unique visits and 1,408 new patients. Patients undergoing elective operative intervention for F/A were identified by ICD-9/10; CPT code. PROMIS PF and PI were assessed at initial and follow-up visits (minimum 6 months, mean 7.8 months). Two-way ANOVA was used to determine differences in PROMIS PF and PI from pre to post surgery with age and gender as co- variates. The distributive method of estimating a minimal clinical important difference (MCID) was used. Receiver operator curve (ROC) analysis was used to determine cut offs for achieving and failing to achieve MCID. To determine the validity of previously published cut offs, 1) they were compared to cut offs for this data set and 2) the percentage of patients achieving and failing to achieve MCID based on previous cut offs were evaluated using a chi-square analysis. Results: There were significant improvements in PROMIS PF scores (mean=6.0; sd=11.6; p41.1 versus previous study=>42) were comparable (Figure 1). Of the patients identified as unlikely to achieve MCID, a significant proportion (88.9%) failed to achieve an MCID ((Chi square=4.7; p=0.03). Of the patients identified as likely to achieve MCID, a significant proportion (84.2%) achieved MCID ((Chi square=17.8; p<0.01). This validates the prior preoperative PROMIS PF thresholds for patients undergoing F/A surgery who will and will not demonstrate MCID improvement in PROMIS PF. The AUC for PROMIS PI was not significant. Conclusion: PROMIS PF cut offs from published data were successful in classifying patients who would improve in PF with surgery from a different geographic area and academic institution with a broad unique array of surgical procedures, diagnoses, and a diverse patient population. This study provides validation evidence to support using the PROMIS PF as a potential tool for surgical selection to help identify patients who would benefit from surgery as well as those who would not. This can allow for appropriate utilization of healthcare dollars and manpower resources to benefit our patients