Validation of the Russian-language version of the Olerud Molander Ankle Score Questionnaire in Russian-speaking patients with ankle fractures
Year: 2024, volume 20 Issue: №4 Pages: 385-388
Heading: Traumatology and Orthopedics Article type: Original article
Authors: Demyanova K.A., Sorokin E.P., Sineokii A.D., Pashkova E.A., Konovalchuk N.S., Kubrina T.N.
Organization: National Medical Research Centere of Traumatology and Orthopedics n. a. R. R. Vreden, St. Petersburg, Russia , Pavlov First Saint Petersburg State Medical University
Heading: Traumatology and Orthopedics Article type: Original article
Authors: Demyanova K.A., Sorokin E.P., Sineokii A.D., Pashkova E.A., Konovalchuk N.S., Kubrina T.N.
Organization: National Medical Research Centere of Traumatology and Orthopedics n. a. R. R. Vreden, St. Petersburg, Russia , Pavlov First Saint Petersburg State Medical University
Summary:
Objective: to validate the Russian version of the OMAS scale (2023), that was used to assess ankle joint function after ankle fractures. Material and methods. The study analyzed data from 50 patients with ankle fractures who received surgical or conservative treatment. The OMAS scale was translated and adapted for the Russian-speaking audience in several steps, such as translation from English to Russian by a native Russian speaker and then from Russian back to English by a native English speaker. Patients then completed the Russian versions of the OMAS and AOFAS questionnaires. We assessed such parameters as no missing responses, ceiling/floor effect, questionnaire re-producibility, internal consistency, and validity. Results. The Russian version of OMAS showed high validity (Spearman coefficient — 0.94; p<0.001), good internal consistency (Cronbach's a->0.76), high reproducibility (intraclass correlation coefficient — 0.89), and questionnaire completion rate was 85%. Conclusion. The Russian version of the OMAS scale is a reliable tool for assessing the function of the ankle joint and the quality of life of patients who have suffered an ankle fracture.
Keywords: ankle fracture, cross-cultural adaptation, Olerud Molander Ankle Score, rehabilitation, validation
Bibliography:
1. Gorbatov RO, Pavlov DV, Malyshev ЕЕ. Modern operative treatment of malleolar fractures and associated consequences (Review). Modern Technologies in Medicine. 2015; 7 (2): 153-67.
2. Jensen SL.Andresen ВК, Mencke S, Nielsen PT. Epidemiology of ankle fractures. A prospective population based study of 212 cases in Aalborg, Denmark. Acta Orthop Scand. 1998; 69 (1): 48-50. DOI: 10.3109/17453679809002356
3. Singer BR, McLauchlan GJ, Robinson CM, Christie J. Epidemiology of fractures in 15,000 adults: The influence of age and gender. J Bone Jt Surg Br. 1998; 80 (2): 243-8. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620x.80b2.7762
4. Goost H, Wimmer MD, Barg A, et al. Fractures of the ankle joint: investigation and treatment options. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2014; 111 (21): 377-88. DOI: 10.3238/arztebl.2014.0377
5. Olerud C, Molander H. A scoring scale for symptom evaluation after ankle fracture. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1984; 103 (3): 190-4. DOI: 10.1007/BF00435553
6. Nilsson GM, Magnus Eneroth M, Ekdahl CS. The Swedish version of OMAS is a reliable and valid outcome measure for patients with ankle fractures. ВМС Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2013; (14): 109. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2474-14-109
7. Buker N, Savkm R, Gokalp O, Ok N. Validity and reliability of Turkish version of Olerud-Molander Ankle Score in patients with malleolar fracture. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2017; 56 (6): 1209-12. DOI: 10.1053/j.jfas.2017.06.002
8. Turhan E, Demirel M, Daylak A, et al. Translation, cross-cultural adaptation, reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the Olerud-Molander Ankle Score (OMAS). Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2017; 51 (1): 60-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.aott. 2016.06.012
9. Penning D, Kleipool S, van Dieren S, et al. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of the Olerud Molan-der Ankle Score (OMAS) in patients with unstable ankle fracture. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2023; 143 (6): 3103-10. DOI: 10.1007/s00402-022-04533-y
10. Kitaoka HB, Alexander IJ, Adelaar RS, et al. Clinical rating systems for the ankle-hindfoot, midfoot, hallux, and lesser toes. Foot Ankle Int. 1994; 15 (7): 349-53. DOI: 10.1177/107110079401500701
11. Guyton GP. Theoretical limitations of the AOFAS scoring systems: An analysis using Monte Carlo modeling. Foot Ankle Int. 2001; 22 (10): 779-87. DOI: 10.1177/107110070102201003
12. Pinsker E, Daniels TR. AOFAS position statement regarding the future of the AOFAS Clinical Rating Systems. Foot Ankle Int. 2011; 32(9): 841-2. DOI: 10.3113/FAI.2011.0841
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| 2024_04_385-388.pdf | 342.36 KB |
Русский
English