Abstract:Background: The American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) score is one of the most common and adapted outcome scales in hallux valgus surgery. However, AOFAS is predominantly physician based and not patient based. Although it may be straightforward to derive statistical significance, it may not equate to the true subjective benefit of the patient’s experience. There is a paucity of literature defining MCID for AOFAS in hallux valgus surgery although it could have a great impact on the accuracy of analyzing surgical outcomes. Hence, the primary aim of this study was to define the Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) for the AOFAS score in these patients, and the secondary aim was to correlate patients’ demographics to the MCID. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study. A total of 446 patients were reviewed preoperatively and followed up for 2 years. An anchor question was asked 2 years postoperation: “How would you rate the overall results of your treatment for your foot and ankle condition?” (excellent, very good, good, fair, poor, terrible). The MCID was derived using 4 methods, 3 from an anchor-based approach and 1 from a distribution-based approach. Anchor-based approaches were (1) mean difference in 2-year AOFAS scores of patients who answered “good” versus “fair” based on the anchor question; (2) mean change of AOFAS score preoperatively and at 2-year follow-up in patients who answered good; (3) receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves method, where the area under the curve (AUC) represented the likelihood that the scoring system would accurately discriminate these 2 groups of patients. The distribution-based approach used to calculate MCID was the effect size method. There were 405 (90.8%) females and 41 (9.2%) males. Mean age was 51.2 (standard deviation [SD] = 13) years, mean preoperative BMI was 24.2 (SD = 4.1). Results: Mean preoperative AOFAS score was 55.6 (SD = 16.8), with significant improvement to 85.7 (SD = 14.4) in 2 years ( P value < .001). There were no statistical differences between demographics or preoperative AOFAS scores of patients with good versus fair satisfaction levels. At 2 years, patients who had good satisfaction had higher AOFAS scores than fair satisfaction (83.9 vs 78.1, P < .001) and higher mean change (30.2 vs 22.3, P = .015). Mean change in AOFAS score in patients with good satisfaction was 30.2 (SD = 19.8). Mean difference in good versus fair satisfaction was 7.9. Using ROC analysis, the cut-off point is 29.0, with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.62. Effect size method derived an MCID of 8.4 with a moderate effect size of 0.5. Multiple linear regression demonstrated increasing age (β = −0.129, CI = −0.245, –0.013, P = .030) and higher preoperative AOFAS score (β = −0.874, CI = −0.644, –0.081, P < .001) to significantly decrease the amount of change in the AOFAS score. Conclusion: The MCID of AOFAS score in hallux valgus surgery was 7.9 to 30.2. The MCID can ensure clinical improvement from a patient’s perspective and also aid in interpreting results from clinical trials and other studies. Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective comparative series.

Measuring acute postoperative pain using the visual analog scale: the minimal clinically important difference and patient acceptable symptom state

Defining minimal clinically important difference, patient acceptable symptomatic state and substantial clinical benefit for the visual analog scale pain score after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair

Postoperative pain assessment tools in day surgery: literature review

Establishment of Minimum Clinically Important Difference and Patient Acceptable Symptom State Thresholds for Foot and Ankle Ability Measure and Visual Analog Scale Scores After Hallux Valgus Surgery

Pain relief that matters to patients: systematic review of empirical studies assessing the minimum clinically important difference in acute pain

Definition of Nonresponse to Analgesic Treatment of Arthritic Pain: An Analytical Literature Review of the Smallest Detectable Difference, the Minimal Detectable Change, and the Minimal Clinically Important Difference on the Pain Visual Analog Scale

Moving beyond pain scores: Multidimensional pain assessment is essential for adequate pain management after surgery

Determination of Minimum Clinically Important Difference (MCID) in Visual Analog Scale (VAS) Pain and Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) Scores After Hallux Valgus Surgery

Patient Satisfaction and Minimally Clinically Important Difference in Pain Relief Vary by Procedure Type: A Comparison of Microvascular Decompression and Radiosurgery for Trigeminal Neuralgia

Minimal important difference and patient acceptable symptom state for pain, Constant-Murley score and Simple Shoulder Test in patients with subacromial pain syndrome

Minimal important difference in postoperative morphine consumption after hip and knee arthroplasty using nausea, vomiting, sedation and dizziness as anchors

Clinically significant differences in self‐reported pain scores in children with headaches

Minimal clinically important differences in the brief pain inventory in patients with bone metastases

Calculation of the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) using different methodologies: case study and practical guide

VAS and NRS, Same or Different? Are Visual Analog Scale Values and Numerical Rating Scale Equally Viable Tools for Assessing Patients after Microdiscectomy?

Preoperative patient-reported outcome measures predict minimal clinically important difference and patient-acceptable symptomatic state following arthroscopic Bankart repair

Validation of an Electronic Visual Analog Scale mHealth Tool for Acute Pain Assessment: Prospective Cross-Sectional Study

Revised minimal important difference values for the visual analogue scale and Foot Health Status Questionnaire when used for plantar heel pain

Minimal Clinically Important Differences for American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society Score in Hallux Valgus Surgery

Methodology for Determining Minimally Clinically Important Differences in Acute Pain Intensity with the Double Stopwatch Technique

Mean analgesic consumption is inappropriate for testing analgesic efficacy in post-operative pain: analysis and alternative suggestion