What’s the clinical significance of VAS, AOFAS, and SF-36 in progressive collapsing foot deformity

Background

This study aimed to ascertain the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) of the American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) scale, visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, and Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36) in progressive collapsing foot deformity (PCFD) surgery.

Methods

In this retrospective cohort study, a total of 84 patients with PCFD (84 feet) who underwent surgery between July 2015 and April 2021 were included. The study assessed the patients' subjective perception, as well as their VAS, AOFAS, and SF-36 scores at a minimum two-year follow-up, and these data were subjected to statistical analysis. The study utilized Spearman correlation analysis to determine the degree of correlation between patients' subjective perception and their VAS, AOFAS, and SF-36 scores. The minimal detectable change (MDC), MCID, and SCB for VAS, AOFAS, and SF-36 were calculated using both distribution- and anchor-based methods. The classification outcomes obtained from the distribution- and anchor-based methods were assessed using Cohen’s kappa.

Results

Based on the subjective perception of the patients, a total of 84 individuals were categorized into three groups, with 7 in the no improvement group, 14 in the minimum improvement group, and 63 in the substantial improvement group. Spearman's correlation analysis indicated that the patients' subjective perception exhibited a moderate to strong association with VAS, AOFAS, SF-36 PCS, and SF-36 MCS, with all coefficients exceeding 0.4. The MCID of VAS, AOFAS, SF-36 PCS, and SF-36 MCS in PCFD surgery were determined to be 0.93, 5.84, 4.15, and 4.10 points using the distribution-based method and 1.50, 10.50, 8.34, and 3.03 points using the anchor-based method. The SCB of VAS, AOFAS, SF-36 PCS, and SF-36 MCS in PCFD surgery were 2.50, 18.50, 11.88, and 6.34 points, respectively. Moreover, the preliminary internal validation efforts have demonstrated the practical application and clinical utility of these findings. With the exception of the distribution-based MCID of SF-36 PCS, which showed fair agreement, all other measures demonstrated moderate to almost perfect agreement.

Conclusions

The MDC, MCID, and SCB intuitively enhance the interpretation of VAS, AOFAS, and SF-36 in PCFD surgery, assisting all stakeholders to better understand the therapeutic benefits and limitations of clinical care, and thus to make a more rational decision. Each of these parameters has its own emphasis and complements the others. These parameters are recommended for evaluating the clinical relevance of the results, and their promotion should extend to other areas of foot and ankle surgery.