Hind- and Midfoot Motion After Ankle Arthrodesis.

L.W. van der Plaat, S.J.P.M. van Engelen, Q.E. Wajer, R.P. hendrickx, H.C. Doets, J.H.P. Houdijk, C.N. van Dijk

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

Background: After ankle arthrodesis (AA), compensatory increased range of motion in adjacent joints might lead to increased osteoarthritis. Evaluation of patient-reported outcomes after AA with validated questionnaires is rare. Likewise, reliable radiographic analysis of the position of the AA, expected to influence the range of motion of the hind- and midfoot, is lacking. Therefore, the current study was performed. Methods: Seventeen patients with unilateral AA were included. Sagittal hind- and midfoot range of motion was measured radiographically. The position of the AA in the sagittal and coronal planes and osteoarthritis of adjacent joints were also evaluated radiographically. Measurements were compared to the contralateral side. Patient-reported outcomes via validated questionnaires were compared to a control group (n = 18). Results: Average follow-up was 3.5 years. Mean combined hind- and midfoot sagittal range of motion after AA equaled that of the contralateral side (20.8 vs 21.0 degrees; P =.93). The tibiotalar angle after AA equaled that of the contralateral side (107 vs 107 degrees; P =.86). The talus was translated posteriorly after AA (T-T ratio 0.45 vs 0.34; P <.001). Low intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) precluded reliable evaluation of the coronal position of the hindfoot (ICC, 0.07 and -0.34) and osteoarthritis in adjacent joints (ICC range, 0-0.54). SF-36 physical health scores after AA are lower as compared with those of controls (50 vs 56; P =.01). Scores on the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score and Ankle Osteoarthritis Scale were also significantly lower. Patient satisfaction with AA was high (average visual analog scale score, 83). Conclusion: No increased sagittal range of motion in the hind- and midfoot after AA was found at 3.5 years of follow-up as compared with the contralateral side. Tibiotalar angles were equal. The talus was translated posteriorly. The hindfoot alignment view was not suitable to analyze the position of the hindfoot. Low ICC of the Kellgren and Lawrence scale precluded evaluation of osteoarthritis of adjacent joints. Patients scored lower than controls on self-reported outcome questionnaires but were satisfied with the result of AA. Level of evidence: Level III, comparative series.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1430-1437
JournalFoot and Ankle International
Volume36
Issue number12
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2015

Fingerprint

Arthrodesis
Ankle
Articular Range of Motion
Osteoarthritis
Joints
Talus
Visual Analog Scale
Patient Satisfaction
Foot

Cite this

van der Plaat, L. W., van Engelen, S. J. P. M., Wajer, Q. E., hendrickx, R. P., Doets, H. C., Houdijk, J. H. P., & van Dijk, C. N. (2015). Hind- and Midfoot Motion After Ankle Arthrodesis. Foot and Ankle International, 36(12), 1430-1437. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071100715593913
van der Plaat, L.W. ; van Engelen, S.J.P.M. ; Wajer, Q.E. ; hendrickx, R.P. ; Doets, H.C. ; Houdijk, J.H.P. ; van Dijk, C.N. / Hind- and Midfoot Motion After Ankle Arthrodesis. In: Foot and Ankle International. 2015 ; Vol. 36, No. 12. pp. 1430-1437.
@article{613e42da6a884b2a83276544ee572794,
title = "Hind- and Midfoot Motion After Ankle Arthrodesis.",
abstract = "Background: After ankle arthrodesis (AA), compensatory increased range of motion in adjacent joints might lead to increased osteoarthritis. Evaluation of patient-reported outcomes after AA with validated questionnaires is rare. Likewise, reliable radiographic analysis of the position of the AA, expected to influence the range of motion of the hind- and midfoot, is lacking. Therefore, the current study was performed. Methods: Seventeen patients with unilateral AA were included. Sagittal hind- and midfoot range of motion was measured radiographically. The position of the AA in the sagittal and coronal planes and osteoarthritis of adjacent joints were also evaluated radiographically. Measurements were compared to the contralateral side. Patient-reported outcomes via validated questionnaires were compared to a control group (n = 18). Results: Average follow-up was 3.5 years. Mean combined hind- and midfoot sagittal range of motion after AA equaled that of the contralateral side (20.8 vs 21.0 degrees; P =.93). The tibiotalar angle after AA equaled that of the contralateral side (107 vs 107 degrees; P =.86). The talus was translated posteriorly after AA (T-T ratio 0.45 vs 0.34; P <.001). Low intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) precluded reliable evaluation of the coronal position of the hindfoot (ICC, 0.07 and -0.34) and osteoarthritis in adjacent joints (ICC range, 0-0.54). SF-36 physical health scores after AA are lower as compared with those of controls (50 vs 56; P =.01). Scores on the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score and Ankle Osteoarthritis Scale were also significantly lower. Patient satisfaction with AA was high (average visual analog scale score, 83). Conclusion: No increased sagittal range of motion in the hind- and midfoot after AA was found at 3.5 years of follow-up as compared with the contralateral side. Tibiotalar angles were equal. The talus was translated posteriorly. The hindfoot alignment view was not suitable to analyze the position of the hindfoot. Low ICC of the Kellgren and Lawrence scale precluded evaluation of osteoarthritis of adjacent joints. Patients scored lower than controls on self-reported outcome questionnaires but were satisfied with the result of AA. Level of evidence: Level III, comparative series.",
author = "{van der Plaat}, L.W. and {van Engelen}, S.J.P.M. and Q.E. Wajer and R.P. hendrickx and H.C. Doets and J.H.P. Houdijk and {van Dijk}, C.N.",
year = "2015",
doi = "10.1177/1071100715593913",
language = "English",
volume = "36",
pages = "1430--1437",
journal = "Foot and Ankle International",
issn = "1071-1007",
publisher = "AOFAS - American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society",
number = "12",

}

van der Plaat, LW, van Engelen, SJPM, Wajer, QE, hendrickx, RP, Doets, HC, Houdijk, JHP & van Dijk, CN 2015, 'Hind- and Midfoot Motion After Ankle Arthrodesis.' Foot and Ankle International, vol. 36, no. 12, pp. 1430-1437. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071100715593913

Hind- and Midfoot Motion After Ankle Arthrodesis. / van der Plaat, L.W.; van Engelen, S.J.P.M.; Wajer, Q.E.; hendrickx, R.P.; Doets, H.C.; Houdijk, J.H.P.; van Dijk, C.N.

In: Foot and Ankle International, Vol. 36, No. 12, 2015, p. 1430-1437.

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Hind- and Midfoot Motion After Ankle Arthrodesis.

AU - van der Plaat, L.W.

AU - van Engelen, S.J.P.M.

AU - Wajer, Q.E.

AU - hendrickx, R.P.

AU - Doets, H.C.

AU - Houdijk, J.H.P.

AU - van Dijk, C.N.

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - Background: After ankle arthrodesis (AA), compensatory increased range of motion in adjacent joints might lead to increased osteoarthritis. Evaluation of patient-reported outcomes after AA with validated questionnaires is rare. Likewise, reliable radiographic analysis of the position of the AA, expected to influence the range of motion of the hind- and midfoot, is lacking. Therefore, the current study was performed. Methods: Seventeen patients with unilateral AA were included. Sagittal hind- and midfoot range of motion was measured radiographically. The position of the AA in the sagittal and coronal planes and osteoarthritis of adjacent joints were also evaluated radiographically. Measurements were compared to the contralateral side. Patient-reported outcomes via validated questionnaires were compared to a control group (n = 18). Results: Average follow-up was 3.5 years. Mean combined hind- and midfoot sagittal range of motion after AA equaled that of the contralateral side (20.8 vs 21.0 degrees; P =.93). The tibiotalar angle after AA equaled that of the contralateral side (107 vs 107 degrees; P =.86). The talus was translated posteriorly after AA (T-T ratio 0.45 vs 0.34; P <.001). Low intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) precluded reliable evaluation of the coronal position of the hindfoot (ICC, 0.07 and -0.34) and osteoarthritis in adjacent joints (ICC range, 0-0.54). SF-36 physical health scores after AA are lower as compared with those of controls (50 vs 56; P =.01). Scores on the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score and Ankle Osteoarthritis Scale were also significantly lower. Patient satisfaction with AA was high (average visual analog scale score, 83). Conclusion: No increased sagittal range of motion in the hind- and midfoot after AA was found at 3.5 years of follow-up as compared with the contralateral side. Tibiotalar angles were equal. The talus was translated posteriorly. The hindfoot alignment view was not suitable to analyze the position of the hindfoot. Low ICC of the Kellgren and Lawrence scale precluded evaluation of osteoarthritis of adjacent joints. Patients scored lower than controls on self-reported outcome questionnaires but were satisfied with the result of AA. Level of evidence: Level III, comparative series.

AB - Background: After ankle arthrodesis (AA), compensatory increased range of motion in adjacent joints might lead to increased osteoarthritis. Evaluation of patient-reported outcomes after AA with validated questionnaires is rare. Likewise, reliable radiographic analysis of the position of the AA, expected to influence the range of motion of the hind- and midfoot, is lacking. Therefore, the current study was performed. Methods: Seventeen patients with unilateral AA were included. Sagittal hind- and midfoot range of motion was measured radiographically. The position of the AA in the sagittal and coronal planes and osteoarthritis of adjacent joints were also evaluated radiographically. Measurements were compared to the contralateral side. Patient-reported outcomes via validated questionnaires were compared to a control group (n = 18). Results: Average follow-up was 3.5 years. Mean combined hind- and midfoot sagittal range of motion after AA equaled that of the contralateral side (20.8 vs 21.0 degrees; P =.93). The tibiotalar angle after AA equaled that of the contralateral side (107 vs 107 degrees; P =.86). The talus was translated posteriorly after AA (T-T ratio 0.45 vs 0.34; P <.001). Low intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) precluded reliable evaluation of the coronal position of the hindfoot (ICC, 0.07 and -0.34) and osteoarthritis in adjacent joints (ICC range, 0-0.54). SF-36 physical health scores after AA are lower as compared with those of controls (50 vs 56; P =.01). Scores on the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score and Ankle Osteoarthritis Scale were also significantly lower. Patient satisfaction with AA was high (average visual analog scale score, 83). Conclusion: No increased sagittal range of motion in the hind- and midfoot after AA was found at 3.5 years of follow-up as compared with the contralateral side. Tibiotalar angles were equal. The talus was translated posteriorly. The hindfoot alignment view was not suitable to analyze the position of the hindfoot. Low ICC of the Kellgren and Lawrence scale precluded evaluation of osteoarthritis of adjacent joints. Patients scored lower than controls on self-reported outcome questionnaires but were satisfied with the result of AA. Level of evidence: Level III, comparative series.

U2 - 10.1177/1071100715593913

DO - 10.1177/1071100715593913

M3 - Article

VL - 36

SP - 1430

EP - 1437

JO - Foot and Ankle International

JF - Foot and Ankle International

SN - 1071-1007

IS - 12

ER -

van der Plaat LW, van Engelen SJPM, Wajer QE, hendrickx RP, Doets HC, Houdijk JHP et al. Hind- and Midfoot Motion After Ankle Arthrodesis. Foot and Ankle International. 2015;36(12):1430-1437. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071100715593913