Outcome of surgically treated intraarticular calcaneus fractures--SF-36 compared with AOFAS and MFS.

Thomas Westphal, Stefan Piatek, Jan-Peter Halm, Stephan Schubert, Stephan Winckler
{"title":"Outcome of surgically treated intraarticular calcaneus fractures--SF-36 compared with AOFAS and MFS.","authors":"Thomas Westphal,&nbsp;Stefan Piatek,&nbsp;Jan-Peter Halm,&nbsp;Stephan Schubert,&nbsp;Stephan Winckler","doi":"10.1080/00016470410004148","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is no consensus as to which is the best treatment for intraarticular fractures of the calcaneus. Furthermore, few studies have assessed general health after calcaneus fractures. We therefore measured the state of general health after operation of calcaneal fractures and compared these data with usual foot-scores.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>We compared the general health of 71 patients with surgically treated calcaneal fractures 2.5 years after injury, with the general health of 71 people from the standard German population (German National Health Survey, 1998) using the SF-36 form. We compared the results of the examination with results of AOFAS Ankle Hindfoot Scale and Maryland Foot Score in the treated patients.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In patients with calcaneal fractures, there were significant limitations regarding general health in all 9 elements of the SF-36 form. Correlations between SF-36 and foot-scores were strong regarding function and pain scales, but moderate for all other scales.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>Patients face significant limitations regarding general health after calcaneal fractures. The usual foot-scores measure only 2 dimensions of outcome: function and pain. To measure all dimensions of outcome, SF-36 is a better alternative.</p>","PeriodicalId":75403,"journal":{"name":"Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica","volume":"75 6","pages":"750-5"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2004-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00016470410004148","citationCount":"59","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00016470410004148","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 59

Abstract

Background: There is no consensus as to which is the best treatment for intraarticular fractures of the calcaneus. Furthermore, few studies have assessed general health after calcaneus fractures. We therefore measured the state of general health after operation of calcaneal fractures and compared these data with usual foot-scores.

Patients and methods: We compared the general health of 71 patients with surgically treated calcaneal fractures 2.5 years after injury, with the general health of 71 people from the standard German population (German National Health Survey, 1998) using the SF-36 form. We compared the results of the examination with results of AOFAS Ankle Hindfoot Scale and Maryland Foot Score in the treated patients.

Results: In patients with calcaneal fractures, there were significant limitations regarding general health in all 9 elements of the SF-36 form. Correlations between SF-36 and foot-scores were strong regarding function and pain scales, but moderate for all other scales.

Interpretation: Patients face significant limitations regarding general health after calcaneal fractures. The usual foot-scores measure only 2 dimensions of outcome: function and pain. To measure all dimensions of outcome, SF-36 is a better alternative.

手术治疗跟骨关节内骨折的疗效——SF-36与AOFAS和MFS的比较
背景:对于跟骨关节内骨折的最佳治疗方法尚无共识。此外,很少有研究评估跟骨骨折后的总体健康状况。因此,我们测量了跟骨骨折手术后的一般健康状况,并将这些数据与通常的足部评分进行了比较。患者和方法:我们使用SF-36表格比较了71例术后2.5年跟骨骨折手术患者的总体健康状况与71名德国标准人群的总体健康状况(德国国家健康调查,1998年)。我们将检查结果与治疗患者的AOFAS踝关节后足量表和马里兰足评分结果进行比较。结果:在跟骨骨折患者中,SF-36形式的所有9个元素的总体健康状况都有明显的局限性。SF-36与足部评分在功能和疼痛量表上的相关性很强,但在所有其他量表上的相关性不高。解释:跟骨骨折后患者的总体健康状况有很大的限制。通常的足部评分只测量结果的两个方面:功能和疼痛。要衡量结果的所有维度,SF-36是一个更好的选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信