Comparison of Ottawa Ankle Rules and Bernese Ankle Rules in Acute Ankle and Midfoot Injuries
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ORIGINAL ARTICLE Comparison of Ottawa Ankle Rules and Bernese Ankle Rules in Acute Ankle and Midfoot Injuries Ayak ve ayak bileği yaralanmalarında Ottawa ayak bileği kuralları ve Bernese ayak bileği kurallarının karşılaştırılması Türkiye Acil Tıp Dergisi - Turk J Emerg Med 2010;10(3):101-105 Ozkan KOSE,1 Servan GOKHAN,2 Ayhan OZHASENEKLER,2 Mustafa CELIKTAS,3 Seyhmus YIGIT,3 Serkan GURCAN4 1Antalya Training and Research Hospital, SUMMARY Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Antalya Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the sensitivity and specificity of Ottawa Ankle Rules (OAR) 2Diyarbakır Training and Research and Bernese Ankle Rules (BAR) in acute ankle and midfoot injuries in the emergency department. Hospital, Department of Emergency Medicine, Diyarbakır Methods: 100 consecutive patients presented to our emergency department with acute ankle and/or midfoot 3Diyarbakır State Hospital, injuries following a blunt trauma were included. Patients were physically examined and evaluated regarding the Department of Orthopedics and BAR and OAR respectively by the same emergency medicine physician. All patients were referred for standard radi- Traumatology, Diyarbakır ography of the ankle or foot or both according to the presence of pain or tenderness in one or both of these zones. 4Diyarbakır Training and Research Hospital, Radiography results were interpreted by a consultant orthopedic surgeon who had not examined the patients. Department of Orthopedics and Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of each test were calculated. Traumatology, Diyarbakır Results: Radiographic examinations showed 19 fractures out of 100 investigated patients. Sensitivity and specificity of OAR were 100% and 77% respectively. Sensitivity and specificity of BAR were 94% and 95% respectively. Posi- tive and negative predictive values of OAR were 51% and 100% respectively while positive and negative predictive value of BAR found to be 81% and 98% respectively. Conclusions: This study showed that OAR has better sensitivity than BAR. However, BAR has better specificity than OAR. Although BAR has better specificity, we still suggest use of OAR due to its 100% sensitivity. Key words: Ankle; Bernese Ankle Rules; foot; fracture; Ottawa Ankle Rules. ÖZET Amaç: Bu çalışmada, acil servise ayak ve ayak bileği yaralanması nedeniyle başvuran hastalarda, Ottawa ayak bi- leği kuralları (OAK) ve Bernese ayak bileği kurallarınının (BAK) sensitivite ve spesifitesini karşılaştırmayı amaçladık. Gereç ve Yöntem: Künt ayak ve ayak bileği yaralanması sonrası acil servise başvuran 100 ardışık hasta çalışmaya dahil edildi. Hastaların muayeneleri yapıldı, OAK ve BAK aynı acil hekimi tarafından sırayla değerlendirildi. Tüm has- talara, ağrı ve hassasiyetin tek bir bölge veya iki bölgeyi içermesine göre standart ayak veya ayak bileği radyografi- leri istendi. Radyografi sonuçları, hastaları muayene etmeden bir ortopedi uzmanı tarafından yorumlandı. Her test için sensitivite, spesifite, pozitif ve negatif prediktif değer hesaplandı. Bulgular: Radyografik değerlendirmeler, incelenen 100 hastanın 19’unda kırıkları göstermiştir. OAK’nın sensitivi- te ve spesifitesi sırasıyla %100 ve %77 idi. BAK’nın sensitivite ve spesifitesi sırasıyla %94 ve %95 idi. OAK’nın pozitif ve negatif prediktif değerleri sırasıyla %51 ve %100 idi. BAK’nın pozitif ve negatif prediktif değerleri sırasıyla %81 ve %98 idi. Sonuç: Bu çalışma OAK’nın BAK’dan daha sensitif olduğunu göstermiştir. Bunun yanında, BAK, OAK’dan daha spesi- fiktir. Biz, BAK daha spesifik olmasına rağmen, %100 sensitiviteye sahip olduğu için OAK’nın kullanımını öneriyoruz. Anahtar sözcükler: Ayak bileği; Bernese ayak bileği kuralları; ayak; kırık; Ottawa ayak bileği kuralları. Correspondence Ozkan KOSE, M.D. Antalya Training and Research Hospital, Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Antalya, Turkey. Tel: +90 - 242 - 249 44 00 E-mail: [email protected] EYLÜL 2010 10:3 TÜRKİYE ACİL TIP DERGİSİ 101 ORIGINAL ARTICLE Introduction The purpose of this study is to compare the sensitivity and specificity of OAR and BAR in acute ankle and midfoot Acute ankle and midfoot injuries are one of the most com- injuries in the emergency department. mon reasons for presenting to A&E departments.[1] Radi- ography is performed on almost all patients to rule out a Material and Methods fracture. However, only 15-20% of patients have a clini- This prospective study was performed in a 3-month period cally significant fracture.[2-4] In other words, radiography on 100 consecutive patients presenting to our emergency is not necessary for most of these patients. department with acute ankle and/or midfoot injuries fol- Various clinical decision rules have been introduced to lowing a blunt trauma. The research was carried out ac- pick up the patients with fracture, therefore to reduce the cording to the Declaration of Helsinki principles. Patients number of unnecessary radiographic examination in this who were less than 18 years of age, those admitted later segment of patients up to date.[2,5,6] Ottawa Ankle Rules than 48 hours, those referring for re-evaluation, pregnant (OAR) is the most popular and widely accepted clini- patients, and those with multiple traumas or decreased cal guideline to help the physician as to decision mak- level of consciousness that may preclude the rating were ing regarding need for x-ray examination after ankle and excluded from study. Patients were physically examined mid-foot injury. It was first developed in 1992 by Steill and evaluated regarding the BAR and OAR respectively et al.[2] Since its introduction, several studies all around by the same emergency medicine physician (Fig. 1, and the world validated the OAR.[3,4,7,8] The use of the rules Fig. 2). Each patient’s data was recorded. All patients has been shown to have nearly 100% sensitivity for ankle were referred for standard radiography of the ankle or foot and mid-foot fractures and has reduced the need for radio- or both according to the presence of pain or tenderness graphic examinations. The most important problem with in one or both of these zones. Radiography results were this guideline, however, is its low specify.[9,10] Concerns interpreted by a consultant orthopedic surgeon who had about increasing the specificity enforced the innovation of not examined the patients. Sensitivity, specificity, positive modifications of OAR or new guidelines.[11] and negative predictive value of each test was calculated. Recently, Eggli et al. described a new indirect examina- Results tion test called Bernese Ankle Rules (BAR) that is pro- 100 patients were included to the study. There were 32 fe- posed to have better specificity than OAR.[5] Although, male and 68 male patients. The mean age was 30.7±10.3. several studies which investigate a single decision rule are The most common mechanism of injury was inversion present in the relevant literature, a few study compares injury to the ankle (79 patients, 74%). 64 patients sus- two different clinical guidelines.[6,12,13] tained the injury during sports, 21 patients sustained the Posterior edge Posterior edge or or tip of lateral tip of medial malleolus malleolus (6 cm) (6 cm) Navicular Base of 5th metatarsal Fig. 1. Ottawa Ankle Rules. Ankle radiographs are required if; (1) There is bone tenderness at A, or; (2) There is bone tenderness at B, or; (3) Inability to bear weight both immediately and in ED Foot radiographs are required if; (1) There is bone tenderness at C, or; (2) There is bone tenderness at D, or; (3) Inability to bear weight both immediately and in ED. 102 SEPTEMBER 2010 10:3 TURK J EMERG MED COMPARISON OF OTTAWA ANKLE RULES AND BERNESE ANKLE RULES IN ACUTE ANKLE AND MIDFOOT INJURIES Fig. 2. Bernese Ankle Rules. If any of these clinical examination causes pain, the diagnosis is acute fracture and radiographic examination is required (Ankle radiographs for a and b, foot radiographs for c.) (a) Indirect fibular stress. The malleolar fork is compressed approximately 10 cm proximally to the fibular tip, avoid- ing direct palpation of the injured region. (b) Direct medial malleolar stress. The thumb is pressed flatly on the medial malleolus. (c) Compression Stress of the midfoot and hindfoot. One hand fixes the calca- neus in neutral position and the other hand applies a sagittal load on the forefoot, so that the midfoot and hindfoot are compressed. injury during daily walking, and the remaining reported es to the injured region without direct compression on other reasons. Radiographic examinations showed 19 the bone when we exclude medial malleolar stress test. fractures out of 100 investigated patients (Table 1). Sensi- Therefore, it is postulated that false-positive results were tivity and specificity of OAR were 100% and 77% respec- prevented by not producing pain with direct palpation of tively. Sensitivity and specificity of BAR were 94% and the bone.[5] However, majority of false-positive results of 95% respectively. Positive and negative predictive values OAR in this study (12 out of 18) were due to inability to of OAR were 51% and 100% respectively. Positive and bear weight both immediately and in ED. Therefore, we negative predictive value of BAR were 81% and 98% re- suggest that ‘inability to bear weight both immediately spectively (Table 2). Further analysis of data revealed that and in ED’ should be questioned in OAR. This may be BAR failed to pick up the fracture in one patient who had the reason that reduces the specificity. When we exclude a non-displaced fifth metatarsal base fracture. OAR was these cases, the specificity would be 92% which is quite rated as positive in 18 patients who had no fracture. 12 out similar to BAR. of these 18 patients were rated as positive due to inability to bear weight both immediately and in ED. OAR is an instrument that is calibrated towards high sen- sitivity to minimize the number of missed fractures, at the Discussion expense of specificity. In a recent systematic review, sen- This study showed that OAR has better sensitivity than sitivity of OAR ranged from 98.2% to 100%, and speci- BAR.