Foot and ankle surgery : official journal of the European Society of Foot and Ankle Surgeons · 2025
Patient-reported outcome measures after tibial pilon fractures: A systematic review.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Alnasser Ahmad A, Le Ysa, Hoveidaei Amir Human, Esmaeili Sina, Carlini Anthony R, Tornetta Paul, Castillo Renan C, Shafiq Babar, Shu Henry T
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: There is no consensus on optimal patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for pilon fractures. Current ankle trauma scoring systems focus mainly on pain, which accounts for 80 % of score variability. This review aims to assess widely used PROMs for pilon fractures and report their reliability and validity.
METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, SCOPUS, and Web of Science was conducted. Studies were included if they involved at least 10 patients with AO-OTA 43 C fractures, assessed at least one PROM, and had a minimum one-year follow-up. Studies were screened using Rayyan, utilizing author consensus.
RESULTS: 87 studies (3828 patients) were included. Of the 26 total PROMs tools utilized, the AOFAS Hindfoot-Ankle Score was the most used PROM (57 %), with pain assessed in 75 % of cases. Mental health was considered in only 23 %, and no PROMs were specifically validated for pilon fractures. Three studies (3.4 %) explicitly validated or assessed the reliability of the PROMs utilized.
CONCLUSION: The review highlights the heterogeneity in PROM selection for pilon fractures and insufficient reliability and validity measurements, emphasizing the need for standardized, pilon fracture-specific PROMs to better evaluate outcomes. The results of this study can guide future consensus statements on developing a standardized set of PROMs for pilon fractures to improve evaluation of patient outcomes.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, SCOPUS, and Web of Science was conducted. Studies were included if they involved at least 10 patients with AO-OTA 43 C fractures, assessed at least one PROM, and had a minimum one-year follow-up. Studies were screened using Rayyan, utilizing author consensus.
RESULTS: 87 studies (3828 patients) were included. Of the 26 total PROMs tools utilized, the AOFAS Hindfoot-Ankle Score was the most used PROM (57 %), with pain assessed in 75 % of cases. Mental health was considered in only 23 %, and no PROMs were specifically validated for pilon fractures. Three studies (3.4 %) explicitly validated or assessed the reliability of the PROMs utilized.
CONCLUSION: The review highlights the heterogeneity in PROM selection for pilon fractures and insufficient reliability and validity measurements, emphasizing the need for standardized, pilon fracture-specific PROMs to better evaluate outcomes. The results of this study can guide future consensus statements on developing a standardized set of PROMs for pilon fractures to improve evaluation of patient outcomes.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.