Validation and evaluation of the Russian version of the SEFAS questionnaire for assessing foot and ankle in surgically treated patients with forefoot disorders

Introduction The Self-reported Foot and Ankle Score (SEFAS) is one of the foot health assessment tools in Sweden. Validation procedures, reliability, validity, sensitivity, approval are essential for the Russian version of the questionnaire with a new language environment.

The objective was to validate the Russian version of the SEFAS questionnaire and approve the tool in the Russian surgical patients with foot disorders.

Material and methods The questionnaires the patients completed preoperatively included SEFAS, SF‑36, a general health survey questionnaire, and the Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS). Patients were requested to  complete the SEFAS questionnaire at 2 months of surgery to assess the sensitivity of the instrument. Based on the case histories clinical researcher recorded general and physical parameters of the patients to include gender, age, socio-demographic data, nature of the foot disorder, a dorsiflexion angle of  the  first metatarsophalangeal joint. To  assess the reproducibility of  the  Russian version of the questionnaire, some patients were requested to complete the SEFAS questionnaire twice preoperatively with an interval of one day.

Results The questionnaire was characterized by good internal consistency and reproducibility indicating acceptable reliability of the Russian version of SEFAS. Statistically significant correlations of varying strength were seen between the SF-36 scores and nearly all the selected questions of the SEFAS Russian version. Statistically significant correlations (moderate to weak) were observed between the LEFS total score and the selected SEFAS questions. Minimal clinically significant changes in MCID scored 3 in the assessment of clinical interpretability of the Russian version of SEFAS.

Discussion The study demonstrated the reliability, validity and sensitivity of the Russian version of the SEFAS questionnaire. The questionnaire appeared to be an informative and clinically interpretable instrument for assessing foot in surgical adult patients with foot disorders.

Conclusion The SEFAS questionnaire can be recommended for Russian trauma and orthopaedic practice to learn the patient's opinion of the condition.

1. Buldt AK, Menz HB. Incorrectly fitted footwear, foot pain and foot disorders: a systematic search and narrative review of the literature. J Foot Ankle Res. 2018;11:43. doi: 10.1186/s13047-018-0284-z

2. López-López D, Becerro-de-Bengoa-Vallejo R, Losa-Iglesias ME, et al. Evaluation of foot health related quality of life in individuals with foot problems by gender: a cross-sectional comparative analysis study. BMJ Open. 2018;8(10):e023980. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023980

3. Myerson MS, Thordarson DB, Johnson JE, et al. Classification and Nomenclature: Progressive Collapsing Foot Deformity. Foot Ankle Int. 2020;41(10):1271-1276. doi: 10.1177/1071100720950722

4. Banga HK, Kalra P, Belokar R, Kumar R. Improvement of human gait in foot deformities patients by 3D printed ankle– foot orthosis. In book: 3D Printing in Biomedical Engineering. 2020;269-288. doi: 10.1007/978-981-15-5424-7_13

5. Puszczałowska-Lizis E, Dąbrowiecki D, Jandziś S, Żak M. Foot Deformities in Women Are Associated with Wearing High-Heeled Shoes. Med Sci Monit. 2019;25:7746-7754. doi: 10.12659/MSM.917983

6. Hunt KJ, Lakey E. Patient-Reported Outcomes in Foot and Ankle Surgery. Orthop Clin North Am. 2018;49(2):277-289. doi: 10.1016/j.ocl.2017.11.014

7. Ray JJ, Friedmann AJ, Hanselman AE, et al. Hallux Valgus. Foot Ankle Orthop. 2019;4(2):2473011419838500. doi: 10.1177/2473011419838500

8. Ingall EM, Zhao J, Kwon JY. Revision Strategies for the Aseptic, Malaligned, Surgically Treated Ankle Fracture. Foot Ankle Clin. 2022;27(2):355-370. doi: 10.1016/j.fcl.2021.11.022

9. Rolfson O, Bohm E, Franklin P, et al. Patient-reported outcome measures in arthroplasty registries Report of the Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Working Group of the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries Part II. Recommendations for selection, administration, and analysis. Acta Orthop. 2016;87 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):9-23. doi: 10.10 80/17453674.2016.1181816

10. MOTION Group. Patient-Reported Outcomes in Orthopaedics. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2018;100(5):436-442. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.17.00608

11. Hermansen LL, Viberg B, Overgaard S. Patient-reported outcome after dislocation of primary total hip arthroplasties: a cross-sectional study derived from the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop. 2022 3;93:29-36. doi: 10.1080/17453674.2021.1983973

12. Cöster MC, Nilsdotter A, Brudin L, Bremander A. Minimally important change, measurement error, and responsiveness for the Self-Reported Foot and Ankle Score. Acta Orthop. 2017;88(3):300-304. doi: 10.1080/17453674.2017.1293445

13. Cöster M, Karlsson MK, Nilsson JÅ, Carlsson A. Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of a self-reported foot and ankle score (SEFAS). Acta Orthop. 2012;83(2):197-203. doi: 10.3109/17453674.2012.657579

14. Whittaker GA, Munteanu SE, Roddy E, Menz HB. Measures of Foot Pain, Foot Function, and General Foot Health. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2020;72 Suppl 10:294-320. doi: 10.1002/acr.24208

15. Arbab D, Kuhlmann K, Schnurr C, et al. Comparison of the Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ) and the Self-Reported Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (SEFAS) in patients with foot or ankle surgery. Foot Ankle Surg. 2019;25(3):361-365. doi: 10.1016/j.fas.2018.01.003

16. Arbab D, Kuhlmann K, Schnurr C, et al. Reliability, validity and responsiveness of the German self-reported foot and ankle score (SEFAS) in patients with foot or ankle surgery. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2017;18(1):409. doi: 10.1186/s12891-017-1772-1

17. Erichsen JL, Jensen C, Larsen MS, et al. Danish translation and validation of the Self-reported foot and ankle score (SEFAS) in patients with ankle related fractures. Foot Ankle Surg. 2021;27(5):521-527. doi: 10.1016/j.fas.2020.06.014

18. Ortega-Avila AB, Cervera-Garvi P, Morales-Asencio JM, et al. Transcultural adaptation and validation of the Spanish‑French versions of the Self-reported Foot and Ankle Score (SEFAS). Disabil Rehabil. 2022;44(12):2896-2901. doi: 10.1080/09638288.2020.1849428

19. Akulaev AA, Ivanov AA, Ionova TI, et al. Linguistic and cultural adaptation of self-reported outcome questionnaires in foot and ankle-related pathologic conditions, FADI, FAAM and SEFAS, and their testing in Russian patients with different orthopedic pathology. Genij Ortopedii. 2023;29(3):253–264. doi: 10.18019/1028-4427-2023-29-3-253-264

20. Prinsen CAC, Mokkink LB, Bouter LM, et al. COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(5):1147-1157. doi: 10.1007/s11136-018-1798-3

21. Wild D, Grove A, Martin M, et al. Principles of Good Practice for the Translation and Cultural Adaptation Process for Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Measures: report of the ISPOR Task Force for Translation and Cultural Adaptation. Value Health. 2005;8(2):94-104. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.04054.x

22. Sutton RM, McDonald EL, Shakked RJ, et al. 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. Foot Ankle Int. 2019;40(6):687-693. doi: 10.1177/1071100719834539

23. Bowman E, Hartman C, Garvin K, et al. Do Pre-operative Emotional and Mental Rand SF-36 Scores Predict Outcomes after Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty? Graduate Medical Education Research Journal. 2019; 1(1). doi: 10.32873/unmc.dc.gmerj.1.1.078

24. Binkley JM, Stratford PW, Lott SA, et al. The Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS): Scale Development, Measurement Properties, and Clinical Application. Physical Therapy. 1999;79(Issue 4):371-383. doi: 1093/ptj/79.4.371

25. Schober P, Boer C, Schwarte LA. Correlation Coefficients: Appropriate Use and Interpretation. Anesth Analg. 2018;126(5):1763-1768. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000002864

26. Lakens D. Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: a practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Front Psychol. 2013;4:863. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863

27. Angst F, Aeschlimann A, Angst J. The minimal clinically important difference raised the significance of outcome effects above the statistical level, with methodological implications for future studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;82:128-136. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.11.016

28. Ayers DC, Bozic KJ. The importance of outcome measurement in orthopaedics. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471(11):3409‑3411. doi: 10.1007/s11999-013-3224-z

29. Ayers DC, Zheng H, Franklin PD. Integrating patient-reported outcomes into orthopaedic clinical practice: proof of concept from FORCE-TJR. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471(11):3419-3425. doi: 10.1007/s11999-013-3143-z

30. Jia Y, Huang H, Gagnier JJ. A systematic review of measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures for use in patients with foot or ankle diseases. Qual Life Res. 2017;26(8):1969-2010. doi: 10.1007/s11136-017-1542-4

31. Martin RL, Irrgang JJ. A survey of self-reported outcome instruments for the foot and ankle. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2007;37(2):72-84. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2007.2403

32. Mo J., Rigin N. V., Bobrov D. S., Slinyakov L. YU. Outcome rating scales for clinical evaluation of foot and ankle. Department of traumatology and orthopedics. 2016;(4):5-11. (In Russ.)