Using the Oxford Foot Model to determine the association between objective measures of foot function and results of the AOFAS Ankle-Hindfoot Scale and the Foot Function Index: a prospective gait analysis study in Germany.

OBJECTIVE: After cross-cultural adaption for the German translation of the Ankle-Hindfoot Scale of the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS-AHS) and agreement analysis with the Foot Function Index (FFI-D), the following gait analysis study using the Oxford Foot Model (OFM) was carried out to show which of the two scores better correlates with objective gait dysfunction.

DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Results of the AOFAS-AHS and FFI-D, as well as data from three-dimensional gait analysis were collected from 20 patients with mild to severe ankle and hindfoot pathologies.Kinematic and kinetic gait data were correlated with the results of the total AOFAS scale and FFI-D as well as the results of those items representing hindfoot function in the AOFAS-AHS assessment. With respect to the foot disorders in our patients (osteoarthritis and prearthritic conditions), we correlated the total range of motion (ROM) in the ankle and subtalar joints as identified by the OFM with values identified during clinical examination 'translated' into score values. Furthermore, reduced walking speed, reduced step length and reduced maximum ankle power generation during push-off were taken into account and correlated to gait abnormalities described in the scores. An analysis of correlations with CIs between the FFI-D and the AOFAS-AHS items and the gait parameters was performed by means of the Jonckheere-Terpstra test; furthermore, exploratory factor analysis was applied to identify common information structures and thereby redundancy in the FFI-D and the AOFAS-AHS items.

RESULTS: Objective findings for hindfoot disorders, namely a reduced ROM, in the ankle and subtalar joints, respectively, as well as reduced ankle power generation during push-off, showed a better correlation with the AOFAS-AHS total score-as well as AOFAS-AHS items representing ROM in the ankle, subtalar joints and gait function-compared with the FFI-D score.Factor analysis, however, could not identify FFI-D items consistently related to these three indicator parameters (pain, disability and function) found in the AOFAS-AHS. Furthermore, factor analysis did not support stratification of the FFI-D into two subscales.

CONCLUSIONS: The AOFAS-AHS showed a good agreement with objective gait parameters and is therefore better suited to evaluate disability and functional limitations of patients suffering from foot and ankle pathologies compared with the FFI-D.