2015
DOI: 10.1053/j.jfas.2014.09.007
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Functional and Clinical Assessment of Two Ankle Arthrodesis Techniques

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

2
10
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
2
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…physical examination, Mazur score, 15 stereophotograpmmetric system. 22 One study showed abnormalities found using gait analysis and demonstrated reduced ROM at the subtalar joint in both groups, consistent with the K-M scores. 22 A positive correlation between the SF-36 score and ROM was shown in another paper, 23 but no significant difference between the two lower limbs throughout the gait cycle with these measures.…”
Section: Clinical Outcomessupporting
confidence: 61%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…physical examination, Mazur score, 15 stereophotograpmmetric system. 22 One study showed abnormalities found using gait analysis and demonstrated reduced ROM at the subtalar joint in both groups, consistent with the K-M scores. 22 A positive correlation between the SF-36 score and ROM was shown in another paper, 23 but no significant difference between the two lower limbs throughout the gait cycle with these measures.…”
Section: Clinical Outcomessupporting
confidence: 61%
“…Technically, the AOFAS ankle-hindfoot score and Mazur scores are clinician reported measures but are widely used as PROMs comprising of pain, function, alignment (AOFAS) or ROM (Mazur). Other PROMs included were the Kellgren and Moore (K-M) system for OA, 22 the OA Dijk score, 21 MT and ST (Metatarsal and Subtalar) score, 22 FAAM (foot and ankle ability measure) 21 and SF-36 (36-item short form survey). 20 Interestingly the ManchestereOxford foot questionnaire (MOXFQ) was not mentioned in the articles screened, despite its popularity in UK clinical practice.…”
Section: Patient Reported Outcome Measures (Proms)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The type of deformity dictates the correction required as well as site of correction. Malerba et al (2015) report of no significant difference in both isolated tibiotalar and combined tibiotalar subtalar fusion. While isolated tibiotalar fusion does allow for some motion at the subtalar joint, there is associated morbidity of degenerative changes in this area (Malerba et al 2015).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 86%
“…Malerba et al (2015) report of no significant difference in both isolated tibiotalar and combined tibiotalar subtalar fusion. While isolated tibiotalar fusion does allow for some motion at the subtalar joint, there is associated morbidity of degenerative changes in this area (Malerba et al 2015). Severe ankle and hindfoot conditions that cannot be adequately managed by other measures, can be treated using hindfoot fusion which act as a salvage option that offers a safe and reliable treatment (Rammelt et al 2013).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 86%
“…Impairments following tibiotalar arthrodesis are often attributed to post‐operative changes in ankle motion. Specifically, in vivo biomechanical studies demonstrate that tibiotalar arthrodesis decreases ankle range of motion, thereby leading to abnormal, inefficient gait . In patients with unilateral tibiotalar arthrodesis, asymmetric gait is also a well‐recognized clinical problem .…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%