Critical evaluation of outcome scales to assess outcome after lateral ankle ligament repair

Introduction: Several scores are commonly used to evaluate patients' postoperative satisfaction after lateral ankle ligament repair, including: AOFAS, FAAM, CAIT and CAIS. Comparing published studies in the literature is difficult, as the same patient can have markedly different results depending on which scoring system is used. The current study aims to address this gap in the literature by developing a system to compare these tests, to allow better analysis and comparison of published studies. Patients and methods: This is a retrospective cohort study of 47 patients following lateral ankle ligament repair using a modified Broström-Gould technique. All patients were operated between 2005 and 2010 by a single surgeon and followed the same post operative rehabilitation protocol. Six patients were excluded from the study because of concomitant surgery. Patients were assessed by an independent observer. We used the Pearson correlation coefficient to analyse the concordance of the scores, as well as scatter plots to assess the linear relationship between them. Results: A linear distribution between the scores was found when the results were analysed using scatter plots. We were thus able to use the Pearson correlation coefficient to evaluate the relationship between each of the different postoperative scores. The correlation was found to be above 0.5 in all cases except for the comparison between the CAIT and the FAAM for the activities of daily living (0.39). We were, therefore, able to compare the results obtained and assess the relative concordance of the scoring systems. The results showed that the more specific the scale is, the worst the score is and inversely. So the CAIT and the CAIS appeared to be more severe than the AOFAS and the FAAM measuring the activities of daily living. The sports subscale of the FAAM demonstrated intermediate results. Conclusion: This study outlines a system to compare different postoperative scores commonly used to evaluate outcome after ankle stabilization surgery. The impact of this study is that it makes comparison of published studies easier, even though they use a variety of different clinical scores, thus facilitating better outcome analysis of operative techniques.

Cost evaluation and comparison of three decision strategies for cardiac revascularization : results of the suspected CAD protocol of the European CMR registry

Background: The public health burden of coronary artery disease (CAD) is important. Perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) is generally accepted to detect and monitor CAD. Few studies have so far addressed its costs and costeffectiveness. Objectives: To compare in a large CMR registry the costs of a CMR-guided strategy vs two hypothetical invasive strategies for the diagnosis and the treatment of patients with suspected CAD. Methods: In 3'647 patients with suspected CAD included prospectively in the EuroCMR Registry (59 centers; 18 countries) costs were calculated for diagnostic examinations, revascularizations as well as for complication management over a 1-year follow-up. Patients with ischemia-positive CMR underwent an invasive X-ray coronary angiography (CXA) and revascularization at the discretion of the treating physician (=CMR+CXA strategy). Ischemia was found in 20.9% of patients and 17.4% of them were revascularized. In ischemia-negative patients by CMR, cardiac death and non-fatal myocardial infarctions occurred in 0.38%/y. In a hypothetical invasive arm the costs were calculated for an initial CXA followed by FFR testing in vessels with ≥50% diameter stenoses (=CXA+FFR strategy). To model this hypothetical arm, the same proportion of ischemic patients and outcome was assumed as for the CMR+CXA strategy. The coronary stenosis - FFR relationship reported in the literature was used to derive the proportion of patients with ≥50% diameter stenoses (Psten) in the study cohort. The costs of a CXA-only strategy were also calculated. Calculations were performed from a third payer perspective for the German, UK, Swiss, and US healthcare systems.