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.

Postoperative Harris Hip Score Versus Harris Hip Score Difference in Hip Replacement: What to Report?

Patient‐related Predictors for the Functional Outcome of SuperPATH Hemiarthroplasty versus Conventional Approach Hemiarthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta‐regression Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

A high proportion of patients demonstrate recall bias in the retrospective collection of patient‐reported outcomes following hip arthroscopy

The Subjective Hip Value is a Valid, Reliable, and Responsive Instrument for Assessing Hip Function in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty

Differences in Physician and Patient Ratings of Items Used to Assess Hip Disorders

Comparison study on total hip replacements with “two-incision”minimally-invasive approach and small-incision-posterolateral approach six years after surgery

Validation of the HOOS, JR: A Short-form Hip Replacement Survey

Does hydroxyapatite coating have no advantage over porous coating in primary total hip arthroplasty? A meta-analysis

The problem of 'noise' in monitoring patient-based outcomes: generic, disease-specific and site-specific instruments for total hip replacement

Comparison of short-term outcomes between SuperPATH approach and conventional approaches in hip replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Meaningful changes for the Oxford hip and knee scores after joint replacement surgery

Hospital Resource Utilization for Primary and Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

The haemophilia joint health score for the assessment of joint health in patients with haemophilia

Patient-reported outcome score utilisation in arthroscopic hip preservation: we are all doing it differently, if at all

Preoperative Expectations Do Not Correlate With Postoperative iHOT-33 Scores and Patient Satisfaction Following Hip Arthroscopy for the Treatment of Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome

Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID), Substantial Clinical Benefit (SCB), and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) Values Following Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement Are Highly Dependent on Their Study Population and Calculation Methods: A Systematic Review

Patient-reported outcome differences for navigated and robot-assisted total hip arthroplasty frequently do not achieve clinically important differences: a systematic review

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

Efficacies of Surgical Treatments Based on Harris Hip Score in Elderly Patients with Femoral Neck Fracture.

Clinically Significant Outcome Thresholds and Rates of Achievement by Shoulder Arthroplasty Type and Preoperative Diagnosis

Outcome Scores and Survivorship of Patients Undergoing Primary Hip Arthroscopy With Borderline Hip Dysplasia: A Propensity-Matched Study With Minimum 10-Year Follow-up