Utility of Ottawa ankle rules in excluding ankle fractures in Indian scenario

<p><strong>Background:</strong> Patients with acute ankle injuries form a major bulk in outdoor and emergency room, and many of them get radiographs done to rule out fractures. Ottawa ankle rules (OAR) may reduce the need for unnecessary radiographs by detecting fractures only with help of simple clinical findings. We conducted this study to see the extent of usefulness of these rules in our day-to-day practice.</p><p><strong>Methods</strong>: Our study is observational in nature. A total of 107 patients who visited the clinic of the chief investigator between the time period from 1^st January 2019 to 31^st December 2020, fulfilling inclusion criteria and willing to participate, were enrolled. The patients were examined clinically, and the assessor recorded the findings on a previously prepared assessment form. Data analysis was done from the master chart.</p><p><strong>Results</strong>: Among the 107 patients, 46 patients were ‘suspicion positive’ by OAR. After the radiographic assessment, we found 11 fractures, all of which belonged to the ‘suspicion positive’ group. Statistical analysis showed that OAR had a sensitivity of 100% for ankle fractures, whereas specificity for the same was 63.54%. We found the positive predictive value to be 23.91% and negative predictive value to be 100%, positive likelihood ratio of 2.74, and negative likelihood ratio of 0.</p><p><strong>Conclusions</strong>: OAR is an easy and reliable tool to screen ankle fractures. In a country with as massive a health care burden as ours, it can reduce the number of unnecessary radiographs and thus reduce exposure, cost, and time of medical professionals.</p>

The current clinical practice of general orthopaedic surgeons in the treatment of lateral ankle sprain: a questionnaire survey in Miyazaki, Japan

Background Lateral ankle sprain (LAS) is one of the most common musculoskeletal injuries. Numerous studies regarding LAS have been performed. However, there are few studies evaluating the current clinical practice of orthopaedic surgeons regarding LAS. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the current clinical practice of general orthopaedic surgeons in the treatment of LAS. Methods A questionnaire survey was conducted from September 2020 to December 2020 in Miyazaki, Japan, to evaluate the clinical practice of general orthopaedic surgeons in the treatment of LAS. The survey was composed of 12 questions that were developed with consideration of the recommendations in the current clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) published by the Dutch orthopaedic society. The questions in this study were focused on the diagnosis, conservative treatment, rehabilitation, and the criteria for return to sports (RTS). Results The survey response rate was 82.7% (129/156). Among the respondents, 95.3% did not consider the Ottawa Ankle Rules in the decision to perform plain radiography for patients. Rehabilitation following LAS was performed in 58.9% of patients. Eighty-five (65.9%) of the surgeons used only one factor as the criterion for RTS. The absence of pain was the most frequently used criterion (45.7%). No objective criteria were used for the RTS decision in athletes with LAS. Conclusions The present study suggested that most general orthopaedic surgeons do not provide the care for patients with LAS recommended by the current CPGs. No objective criteria for the RTS decision are used for athletes with LAS.

Adequacy of clinical information in X-ray referrals for traumatic ankle injury with reference to the Ottawa Ankle Rules—a retrospective clinical audit

Study Objective To assess the adequacy of clinical information with reference to the Ottawa Ankle Rules (OAR) in X-ray referrals for adults with traumatic ankle injury in the ED of a South Australian tertiary hospital and report upon referring trends between emergency department clinicians. Methods A retrospective clinical audit of adult ankle X-ray referrals in the emergency department was conducted. Eligible referrals were screened for their adherence to the OAR, patient details, clinical history and referrer. A logistic regression was used to determine the influence of these factors on the likelihood of being referred for X-rays despite not meeting the OAR criteria. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios and their associated confidence intervals were calculated to assess the diagnostic accuracy of the OAR for those referred. Results Out of the 262 eligible referrals, 163 were deemed to have met the criteria for the OAR. Physiotherapists showed the highest OAR compliance of 77.3% and were the most accurate in their use of the rules, with a sensitivity of 0.86. Medical officers, registrars and interns were 2.5 times more likely to still refer a patient for X-ray if they did not meet the OAR criteria, compared to physiotherapists as the baseline. Patient age, duration of injury etc. were not significantly associated with likelihood of referral (even when they did not meet OAR criteria). The overall sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios of the OAR were 0.59 (95% CI [0.47–0.71]), 0.37 (95% CI [0.30–0.44]), 0.93 (95% CI [0.76–1.16]) and 1.10 (95% CI [0.82–1.48]) respectively. Conclusion The results of this audit demonstrated poor sensitivity and moderate compliance by referrers with the rule. Reasonable evidence exists for the implementation of individual and/or institutional-based change strategies to improve clinician compliance and accuracy with use of the OAR.