Palapa GLR, Regla MH

Language: Spanish
References: 22
Page: 293-298
PDF size: 187.94 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Objective: To analyze the usefulness of the rules of Ottawa in the diagnosis of foot and ankle injuries.
Material and methods: To design a diagnostic test. Site: emergency room at Magdalena de las Salinas Trauma Hospital. Participants: adults with injuries of foot and ankle taken care in January 2003. Sampling: non-probabilistic by convenience. Interventions: patients who went for attention due to foot and ankle injuries without evident deformity were asked to went through X-rays, and they were assessed by means of the following criteria: a) pain or increase in sensitivity of the later edge and end of maleolo lateral and medial, in the 6 cm distals; b) pain or increase in the sensitivity of the navicular bone/or base of the fifth metatarsal, and, c) inability to support their weight immediately after the injury and during the physical exploration. The presence of one or more criteria are indicative of X-rays. Measurements: sensitivity, specificity, predictive values (PV), and probability rates (PR).
Results: 50 ankles were studied, correlating the clinical test with the X-rays (gold standard). The clinical test showed a sensitivity of 100 %, specificity of 60 %, PVP of 30 %, PVN of 100 %, RFP of 40 %, and, RFN of 0, PR/RPP of 3, PR/RPN of 0.
Conclusions: In the injuries of ankle, when the Ottawa rules are negative, the X-rays series are not indicated, since the probability of not having a fracture can be of 100 %. When it has one or more criteria, if we asked for the X-rays, a third part of the patients can have fracture with a rate of false positives of 40 %. Apparently, in ankle and foot injuries, certain studies are not essential without having any deterioration of the quality medical care.

REFERENCES

1. Stiell IG, Greenberg GH, McKnight RD, Nair RC, McDowell I, Reardon M, et al. Decision rules for the use of radiography in acute ankle injuries. Refi-nement and prospective validation. JAMA 1993; 269:1127-1132.

2. 2. Pigman EC, Klug RK, Sanford S, Jolly BT. Evaluation of the Ottawa clinical decision rules for the use of radiography in acute ankle and mildfoot injuries in the emergency department: an independent site asses-sment. Ann Emerg Med 1994;24:41-45.

3. 3. Papacostas E, Malliaropoulos N, Papadopoulos A, Liouliakis C. Validation of Ottawa ankle rules protocol in greek athletes: study in the emergency departments of a district General Hospital and a sports injuries clinic. B J Sports Med 2001;35:445-447.

4. 4. Anis AH, Stiell IG, Stewart DG, Laupacis A. Cost-effectiveness analysis of the Ottawa ankle rules. Ann Emerg Med 1995;26:422-427.

5. 5. Auleley GR, Kerboull L, Durieux P, Cosquer M, Courpied JP, Ravaud P. Validation of the Ottawa rules in France: a study in the surgical emergency department of a teaching hospital. Ann Emerg Med 1998;32:14-18.

6. 6. Singh RG, Marathias A. Comparison of current local practice and the Ottawa ankle rules to determine the need for radiography in acute ankle injury. Accid Emerg Nurs 1999;7:201-206.

7. 7. Yuen MCH, Gim SW, Lam HS, Tung WK. Validation of the Ottawa ankle rules in a Hong Kong ED. Am J Emerg Med 2001;19:429-432.

8. 8. Tandeter HB, Shvartzman P. Acute ankle injuries: clinical decision rules for radiography. Am Fam Physician 1997;55:2721-2728.

9. 9. Boutis K, Komar L, Jaramillo D, Babyn P, Alman B, Snyder B, et al. Sensitivity of a clinical examination to predict need for radiography in children with ankle injuries: a prospective study. Lancet 2001;358:2118-2121.

10. Verma S, Hamilton K, Hawkins HH, Kothari R, Singal B, Buncher R, et al. Clinical application of the Ottawa ankle rules for the use of radiography in acute ankle injuries: a independent site assessment. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997;169:825-827.

11. Stiell IG, McKniht RD, Greenberg GH, McDowell I, Nair R, Wells GA, et al. Implementation of the Ottawa ankle rules. JAMA 1994;271:827-832.

12. Auleley GR, Ravaud P, Giraudeau B, Kerboull L, Nizard P, Massin P, et al. Implementation of the Ottawa ankle rules in France. A multicenter rando-mized controlled trial. JAMA 1997;277:1935-1939.

13. Stiell IG, Wells GA, Laupacis, Brison R, Verbeek R, Vandemheen K, et al. Multicentre trial to introduce the Ottawa ankle rules for use of radiography in acute ankle injuries. BMJ 1995;311:594-597.

14. Graham ID, Stiell IG, Laupacis A, McAuley L, Howell M, Clancy M, et al. Awareness and use of the Ottawa ankle and knee rules in 5 countries: can publication alone be enough to change practice? Ann Emerg Med 2001;37:259-266.

15. Chande VT. Decision rules for roentgenography of children with acute ankle injuries. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1995;149:255-258.

16. Clark KD, Tanner S. Evaluation of the Ottawa ankle rules in children. Pediatr Emerg Care 2003;19:73-78.

17. Rosin A, Sinopoli M. Impact of the Ottawa ankle rules in a US army troop medical clinic in south Korea. Mil Med 1999;164:793-794

18. Spinger BA, Arciero RA, Tenuta JJ, Taylor DC. A prospective study of modified Ottawa ankle rules in a military population. Am J Sports Med 2000;28: 864-868.

19. McBride KL. Validation of the Ottawa ankle rules. Experience at a community hospital. Can Fam Physi-cian 1997;43:459-465.

20. Markert RJ, Walley ME, Guttman TG, Metha R. A pooled analysis of the Ottawa ankle rules used of adults in the ED. Am J Emerg Med 1998;16:564-567.

21. Aginaga B, Ventura HI, Tejera TE, Huarte SI, Cuende GA, Gomez GM, et al. Validation of the Ottawa ankle rules for the efficient utilization of radiographies in acute lesions of the ankle. Atencion Primaria 1999;15:203-208.

22. Pijnenburg AC, Glas AS, De Ross MA, Bogaard K, Lijmer JG, Bossuyt PM, et al. Radiography in acute ankle Injuries: the Ottawa ankle rules versus local diagnostic decision rules. Ann Emerg Med 2002;39: 599-604.