This guideline aimed to advance current understandings regarding the diagnosis, prevention and therapeutic interventions for ankle sprains by updating the existing guideline and incorporate new research. A secondary objective was to provide an update related to the cost-effectiveness of diagnostic procedures, therapeutic interventions and prevention strategies. It was posited that subsequent interaction of clinicians with this guideline could help reduce health impairments and patient burden associated with this prevalent musculoskeletal injury. The previous guideline provided evidence that the severity of ligament damage can be assessed most reliably by delayed physical examination (4–5 days post trauma). After correct diagnosis, it can be stated that even though a short time of immobilisation may be helpful in relieving pain and swelling, the patient with an acute lateral ankle ligament rupture benefits most from use of tape or a brace in combination with an exercise programme.New in this update: Participation in certain sports is associated with a heightened risk of sustaining a lateral ankle sprain. Care should be taken with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) usage after an ankle sprain. They may be used to reduce pain and swelling, but usage is not without complications and NSAIDs may suppress the natural healing process. Concerning treatment, supervised exercise-based programmes preferred over passive modalities as it stimulates the recovery of functional joint stability. Surgery should be reserved for cases that do not respond to thorough and comprehensive exercise-based treatment. For the prevention of recurrent lateral ankle sprains, ankle braces should be considered as an efficacious option.

PurposeTo determine the best surgical treatment for chronic ankle instability (CAI) a systematic review was performed to compare the functional outcomes between various surgical stabilization methods.MethodsA systematic search was performed from 1950 up to April 2016 using PubMed, EMBASE, Medline and the Cochrane Library. Inclusion criteria were a minimum age of 18 years, persistent lateral ankle instability, treatment by some form of surgical stabilization, described functional outcome measures. Exclusion criteria were case reports, (systematic) reviews, articles not published in English, description of only acute instability or only conservative treatment, medial ankle instability and concomitant injuries, deformities or previous surgical treatment for ankle instability. After inclusion, studies were critically appraised using the Modified Coleman Methodology Score.ResultsThe search resulted in a total of 19 articles, including 882 patients, which were included in this review. The Modified Coleman Methodology Score ranged from 30 to 73 points on a scale from 0 to 90 points. The AOFAS and Karlsson Score were the most commonly used patient-reported outcome measures to assess functional outcome after surgery. Anatomic repair showed the highest post-operative scores [AOFAS 93.8 (SD ± 2.7; n = 119); Karlsson 95.1 (SD ± 3.6, n = 121)], compared to anatomic reconstruction [AOFAS 90.2 (SD ± 10.9, n = 128); Karlsson 90.1 (SD ± 7.8, n = 35)] and tenodesis [AOFAS 86.5 (SD ± 12.0, n = 10); Karlsson 85.3 (SD ± 2.5, n = 39)]. Anatomic reconstruction showed the highest score increase after surgery (AOFAS 37.0 (SD ± 6.8, n = 128); Karlsson 51.6 (SD ± 5.5, n = 35) compared to anatomic repair [AOFAS 31.8 (SD ± 5.3, n = 119); Karlsson 40.9 (SD ± 2.9, n = 121)] and tenodesis [AOFAS 19.5 (SD ± 13.7, n = 10); Karlsson 29.4 (SD ± 6.3, n = 39)] (p < 0.005).ConclusionAnatomic reconstruction and anatomic repair provide better functional outcome after surgical treatment of patients with CAI compared to tenodesis reconstruction. These results further discourage the use of tenodesis reconstruction and other non-anatomic surgical techniques. Future studies may be required to indicate potential value of tenodesis reconstruction when used as a salvage procedure. Not optimal, but the latter still provides an increase in functional outcome post-operatively. Anatomic reconstruction seems to give the best results, but may be more invasive than anatomic repair. This has to be kept in mind when choosing between reconstruction and repair in the treatment of CAI.Level of evidenceIV.

PurposeTo develop a translated Dutch version of the Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool (CAIT) and test its psychometric properties in a Dutch population with foot and ankle complaints.MethodsThe CAIT was translated into the Dutch language using a forward–backward translation design. Of the 130 subsequent patients visiting the outpatient clinic for foot and ankle complaints who were asked to fill out a questionnaire containing the CAIT, the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS), and the numeric rating scale (NRS) pain, 98 completed the questionnaire. After a 1-week period, patients were asked to fill out a second questionnaire online containing the CAIT and NRS pain. This second questionnaire was completed by 70 patients. With these data, the construct validity, test–retest reliability, internal consistency, measurement error, and ceiling and floor effects were assessed. Additionally, a cut-off value to discriminate between stable and unstable ankles, in patients with ankle complaints, was calculated.ResultsConstruct validity showed moderate correlations between the CAIT and FAOS subscales (Spearman’s correlation coefficient (SCC) = 0.36–0.43), and the NRS pain (SCC = −0.55). The cut-off value was found at 11.5 points of the total CAIT score (range 0–30). Test–retest reliability showed to be excellent with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.94. Internal consistency was high (Cronbach’s α = 0.86). No ceiling or floor effects were detected.ConclusionBased on the results, the Dutch version of the CAIT is a valid and reliable questionnaire to assess ankle instability in the Dutch population and is able to differentiate between a functionally unstable and stable ankle. The tool is the first suitable tool to objectify the severity of ankle instability specific complaints and assess change in the Dutch population. Level of evidence II.