Predicting factors for better outcomes of stable supination external rotation type 2 ankle fractures.

PURPOSE: Stable Weber B ankle fractures are treated by a walking boot for 6 weeks and bearing full weight through the boot as tolerated. The aim of the present study was to assess the outcome parameters of this treatment protocol, evaluate the efficacy of using the walking boot, and investigate any possible predicting factors that could affect the outcomes. METHODS: All the patients with stable Weber B ankle fractures, treated in our hospital between January 2018 and December 2018, were prospectively included to the study. The patients were evaluated clinically, and the patient-reported outcome measures data were collected at the 2 and 6 weeks post-injury. Chi square, Spearman's rho test, independent samples and paired sample t-tests were used for the monovariant analysis. RESULTS: A total of 128 consecutive patients (aged 52.2 ± 19.1 years) with supination external rotation type 2 fracture were finally included to the study. At the 2 weeks follow-up, the reported outcome measures scores were in moderate levels, but improved significantly at the 6 weeks follow-up (p < 0.0001). Multivariant analysis revealed that the ability to bear full weight without the boot at the 2 weeks after diagnosis was the only variable, which made statistically unique contribution to the foot and ankle disability index score at the 6 weeks (p = 0.005). CONCLUSION: Conservative treatment using a walking boot with advice to bear full weight of stable ankle Weber B fractures can bring to good functional outcomes. The ability to bear full weight without the aid of the walking boot at 2 weeks after diagnosis was the only significant predicting factor for better outcomes at 6 weeks after diagnosis.

Development and validation of the unifying elective orthopaedic score (UnEOS). A pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly valued in orthopaedics. There are already many site specific or pathology specific scores. These scores are usually validated for specific pathologies and can be complicated and time consuming to use. The aim of the present pilot study is to develop a new orthopaedic score for elective operations, which measures patient satisfaction simply and quickly, and is not limited to a single site or pathology. MATERIALS & METHODS: The UnEOS questionnaire has 16 questions. Eleven questions relate to the three main dimensions (Symptoms, Function, Mental Status) and can be used both preoperatively and postoperatively. Five questions are added to the questionnaire at the postoperative mode, which form the satisfaction dimension. For this pilot study we enrolled all patients listed for surgery from our foot and ankle clinics. Each patient was asked to complete the UnEOS and FADI questionnaires. RESULTS: A total of 181 questionnaires were collected from patients (aged 56.4 ±â€¯14.8, range 20-85) with a variety of foot and ankle pathologies. Scores were obtained both pre- and post-operatively. The scale reliability was checked with the Cronbach's Alpha score, which was 0.87 for the UnEOS scale. Each subscale had good reliability with 0.73, 0.77 and 0.76 respectively (Symptoms, Function, Mental Status). The validity of the scale was checked using the Spearman's Rho correlation, which was strong between the UnEOS and the FADI score (0.79) and each subscale (0.7, 0.75 and 0.69 respectively). CONCLUSION: The UnEOS score is a valid and easy to use PROM which is not limited by site or pathology. Further validation with other orthopaedic pathologies will lead to a Unified Elective Orthopaedic score.