Ottawa Ankle Rules Research Articles

Does the normal four steps weight-bearing rule predict the need for radiography in cases of blunt ankle trauma?

Background: Ankle injuries are one of the most common complaints of patients presenting to emergency departments (ED). The Ottawa ankle rules (OAR) was introduced to help physicians to decide who may require x-ray for blunt injuries. The present study aimed at validating the four steps weight-bearing rule of OAR as a sole criterion. Methods: This prospective observational study was conducted on 214 patients with acute ankle injury who referred to 3 emergency departments over a 7-months period in 2008. Main outcome measures of this survey included the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and the likelihood ratios (positive and negative) of the four steps weight-bearing rule. Results: In this study, 34 fractures were found among the patients. The decision rule had a sensitivity of 0.88 and specificity of 0.61 in detecting all midfoot and ankle fractures. Application of this rule by emergency medicine residents resulted in a 47% reduction in the use of midfoot and ankle radiography. Conclusion: Applying a four steps weight-bearing rule as a sole criterion to detect ankle fractures is not as accurate and sensitive as OAR. Solitary application of this rule may lead to an increasing number of missed fractures compared with OAR.

Review article: Best practice management of common ankle and foot injuries in the emergency department (part 2 of the musculoskeletal injuries rapid review series).

Ankle and foot injuries are the most common musculoskeletal injuries presenting to Australian EDs and are associated with a large societal and economic impact. The quality of ED care provided to patients with ankle and foot fractures or soft tissue injuries is critical to ensure the best possible outcomes for the patient. This rapid review investigated best practice for the assessment and management of common ankle and foot injuries in the ED. Databases including PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, TRIP and the grey literature, including relevant organisational websites, were searched in 2017. Primary studies, systematic reviews and guidelines were considered for inclusion. English language articles published in the last 12 years that addressed the acute assessment, management or prognosis in the ED were included. Data extraction of included articles was conducted, followed by quality appraisal to rate the level of evidence where possible. The search revealed 1242 articles, of which 71 were included in the review (n = 22 primary articles, n = 35 systematic reviews and n = 14 guidelines). This rapid review provides clinicians managing fractures and soft tissue injuries of the ankle and foot in the ED a summary of the best available evidence to enhance the quality of care for optimal patient outcomes. Following a thorough history and physical examination, including the application of the Ottawa ankle rules, ED clinicians should not only provide a diagnosis, but rate the severity of soft tissue injuries, or stability of fractures and dislocations, which are the pivotal decision points in guiding ED treatment, specialist referral and the follow-up plan.

ANKLE AND MIDFOOT FRACTURES;

Objectives: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of Ottawa rule in ankle andmidfoot fracture keeping x-ray as gold standard. Study Design: Descriptive study. Setting:Department of Orthopedics, Lady Reading Hospital Peshawar. Period: June 2014 to May 2016.Materials and Methods: Through a Cross Sectional Study Design, a total of 175 patientspresenting with suspicion of ankle/mid foot fracture were selected in a consecutive mannerfrom the OPD and subjected to detection of fracture through Ottawa Ankle Rule followed byX-ray to confirm the diagnosis of fracture. Results: The mean age group of patients in ourstudy was 36.1+10.4 years. There were 85.7% males and 14.3% were females. The sensitivityanalysis shows OAR has a sensitivity of 81.2% and specificity 61.9%., positive predictive valueof the OAR is 79.1% and negative predictive value is 65.0% keeping X-ray as a gold standard.Conclusion: The overall sensitivity and specificity of the OAR lies within an acceptable rangein our local population however, we still recommend further research work over it beforerecommendations as a routine screening test for the fracture of ankle or mid foot.

English

Objectives: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of Ottawa rule in ankle andmidfoot fracture keeping x-ray as gold standard. Study Design: Descriptive study. Setting:Department of Orthopedics, Lady Reading Hospital Peshawar. Period: June 2014 to May 2016.Materials and Methods: Through a Cross Sectional Study Design, a total of 175 patientspresenting with suspicion of ankle/mid foot fracture were selected in a consecutive mannerfrom the OPD and subjected to detection of fracture through Ottawa Ankle Rule followed byX-ray to confirm the diagnosis of fracture. Results: The mean age group of patients in ourstudy was 36.1+10.4 years. There were 85.7% males and 14.3% were females. The sensitivityanalysis shows OAR has a sensitivity of 81.2% and specificity 61.9%., positive predictive valueof the OAR is 79.1% and negative predictive value is 65.0% keeping X-ray as a gold standard.Conclusion: The overall sensitivity and specificity of the OAR lies within an acceptable rangein our local population however, we still recommend further research work over it beforerecommendations as a routine screening test for the fracture of ankle or mid foot.

Accuracy of the Ottawa Ankle Rules applied by non-physician providers in a pediatric emergency department.

The Ottawa Ankle Rules (OAR) are a clinical decision tool used to minimize unnecessary radiographs in ankle and foot injuries. The OAR are a reliable tool to exclude fractures in children over 5 years of age when applied by physicians. Limited data support its use by other health care workers in children. Our objective was to determine the accuracy of the OAR when applied by non-physician providers (NPP). Children aged 5 to 17 years presenting with an acute ankle or foot injury were enrolled. Phase 1 captured baseline data on x-ray use in 106 patients. NPPs were then educated on the usage of the OAR and completed an OAR learning module. In phase 2, NPPs applied the OAR to 184 included patients. The sensitivity of the foot rule, as applied by NPP's, was 100% (56-100% CI) and the specificity was 17% (9-29% CI) for clinically significant fractures. The sensitivity of the ankle portion of the rule, as applied by NPP's, was 88% (47-99 CI) and the specificity was 31% (23-40% CI) for clinically significant fractures. The only clinically significant fracture missed by NPP's was detected on physician assessment. Inter-observer agreement was κ=0.24 for the ankle rule and κ=0.49 for the foot rule. The sensitivity of the OAR when applied by NPP's was very good. More training and practice using the OAR would likely improve NPP's inter-observer reliability. Our data suggest the OAR may be a useful tool for NPP's to apply prior to physician assessment.

Efficiency of the Modified Ottawa ankle rules for the differential diagnosis of fracture in acute foot and ankle injury

Objective: To evaluate the efficiency of modified Ottawa Ankle Rules (OAR) for the differential diagnosis of fractures in acute foot and ankle injuries. Methods: From October 2016 to December 2016, 272cases (135 males and 137 females) of foot and ankle injury in emergency department of Tianjin Hospital were prospective enrolled in the study.The median age was 27.5 years (7-87); left limb 155, right 117 cases; injury time ranged from 0.3 to 24 h (median 4 h). Conventional and modified OAR was applied on physical examination, subsequently radiography performed to determine the occurrence of fractures.The efficiency of the two methods were compared and analyzed. Results: Fractures were found in 100 cases (36.8%), 49 cases of ankle and 51 cases of foot fractures.With the imaging results as the standard, the sensitivity for conventional and modified OAR were 93.0% and 100%, specificity were 9.9% and 8.7%, the positive predictive value were 37.5% and 38.9%, the negative predictive value were 70.8% and 100%, the accuracy were 40.4% and 42.3%, missed diagnosis rate were 7% and 0% respectively.The sensitivity, positive likelihood ratio, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, accuracy, negative likelihood ratio and missed diagnosis ratio were better than in modified OAR compared with Conventional OAR, while the specificity was slightly lower compared to Conventional OAR.The Kappa value of modified OAR was 0.065 (P>0.05), which is better than conventional OAR.Conventional OAR can reduce 6.3% (17/272) X-ray and modified OAR decline 5.5% (15/272). Conclusion: Modified OAR significantly reduces the rate of missed diagnosis of foot fractures, but its specificity is poor. Ultrasound can be assisted to improve the specificity and reduce the number of unnecessary X-rays.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Clinical Decision Rules to Exclude Fractures in Acute Ankle Injuries: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BackgroundAnkle decision rules are developed to expedite patient care and reduce the number of radiographs of the ankle and foot. Currently, only three systematic reviews have been conducted on the accuracy of the Ottawa Ankle and Foot Rules (OAFR) in adults and children. However, no systematic review has been performed to determine the most accurate ankle decision rule. ObjectivesThe purpose of this study is to examine which clinical decision rules are the most accurate for excluding ankle fracture after acute ankle trauma. MethodsA systematic search was conducted in the databases PubMed, CINAHL, PEDro, ScienceDirect, and EMBASE. The sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratio of the included studies were calculated. A meta-analysis was conducted if the accuracy of a decision rule was available from at least three different experimental studies. ResultsEighteen studies satisfied the inclusion criteria. These included six ankle decision rules, specifically, the Ottawa Ankle Rules, Tuning Fork Test, Low Risk Ankle Rule, Malleolar and Midfoot Zone Algorithms, and the Bernese Ankle Rules. Meta-analysis of the Ottawa Ankle Rules (OAR), OAFR, Bernese Ankle Rules, and the Malleolar Zone Algorithm resulted in a negative likelihood ratio of 0.12, 0.14, 0.39, and 0.23, respectively. ConclusionThe OAR and OAFR are the most accurate decision rules for excluding fractures in the event of an acute ankle injury.

Retrospective comparison of the Low Risk Ankle Rules and the Ottawa Ankle Rules in a pediatric population

BackgroundA recent multicenter prospective Canadian study presented prospective evidence supporting the Low Risk Ankle Rules (LRAR) as a means of reducing the number of ankle radiographs ordered for children presenting with an ankle injury while maintaining nearly 100% sensitivity. This is in contrast to a previous prospective study which showed that this rule yielded only 87% sensitivity. ObjectiveIt is important to further investigate the LRAR and compare them with the already validated Ottawa Ankle Rules (OAR) to potentially curb healthcare costs and decrease unnecessary radiation exposure without compromising diagnostic accuracy. MethodsWe conducted a retrospective chart review of 980 qualifying patients ages 12months to 18years presenting with ankle injury to a commonly staffed 310 bed children's hospital and auxiliary site pediatric emergency department. ResultsThere were 28 high-risk fractures identified. The Ottawa Ankle Rules had a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI 87.7–100), specificity of 33.1% (95% CI 30.1–36.2), and would have reduced the number of ankle radiographs ordered by 32.1%. The Low Risk Ankle Rules had a sensitivity of 85.7% (95% CI 85.7–96), specificity of 64.9% (95% CI 61.8–68), and would have reduced the number of ankle radiographs ordered by 63.1%. The latter rule missed 4 high-risk fractures. ConclusionThe Low Risk Ankle Rules may not be sensitive enough for use in Pediatric Emergency Departments, while the Ottawa Ankle Rules again demonstrated 100% sensitivity. Further research on ways to implement the Ottawa Ankle Rules and maximize its ability to decrease wait times, healthcare costs, and improve patient satisfaction are needed.

Impact of Clinical Decision Support on Radiography for Acute Ankle Injuries: A Randomized Trial.

IntroductionWhile only 15–20% of patients with foot and ankle injuries presenting to urgent care centers have clinically significant fractures, most undergo radiography. We examined the impact of electronic point-of-care clinical decision support (CDS) on adherence to the Ottawa Ankle Rules (OAR), as well as use and yield of foot and ankle radiographs in patients with acute ankle injury.MethodsWe obtained institutional review board approval for this randomized controlled study performed April 18, 2012—December 15, 2013. All ordering providers credentialed at an urgent care affiliated with a quaternary care academic hospital were randomized to either receive or not receive CDS, based on the OAR and integrated into the physician order-entry system, with feedback at the time of imaging order. If the patient met OAR low-risk criteria, providers were advised against imaging and could either cancel the order or ignore the alert. We identified patients with foot and ankle complaints via ICD-9 billing codes and electronic health records and radiology reports reviewed for those who were eligible. Chi-square was used to compare adherence to the OAR (primary outcome), radiography utilization rate and radiography yield of foot and ankle imaging (secondary outcomes) between the intervention and control groups.ResultsOf 14,642 patients seen at urgent care during the study period, 613 (4.2%, representing 632 visits) presented with acute ankle injury and were eligible for application of the OAR; 374 (59.2%) of these were seen by control-group providers. In the intervention group, CDS adherence was higher for both ankle (239/258=92.6% vs. 231/374=61.8%, p=0.02) and foot radiography (209/258=81.0% vs. 238/374=63.6%; p<0.01). However, ankle radiography use was higher in the intervention group (166/258=64.3% vs. 183/374=48.9%; p<0.01), while foot radiography use (141/258=54.6% vs. 202/374=54.0%; p=0.95) was not. Radiography yield was also higher in the intervention group (26/307=8.5% vs. 18/385=4.7%; p=0.04).ConclusionClinical decision support, previously demonstrated to improve guideline adherence for high-cost imaging, can also improve guideline adherence for radiography – as demonstrated by increased OAR adherence and increased imaging yield.

Diagnostic accuracy of the Ottawa Ankle and Midfoot Rules: a systematic review with meta-analysis

ObjectiveTo review the diagnostic accuracy of the Ottawa Ankle and Midfoot Rules and explore if clinical features and/or methodological quality of the study influence diagnostic accuracy estimates.DesignSystematic review with meta-analysis.Data...

Reasons for increased number of x-rays done in emergency department for injuries. A dilemma of delay and overcrowding

Background: In the past 3 years, average length of stay in the emergency department has increased by 20–30%. It was found that one of the most important factor causing this was increased number of X-rays done. At an average one x-ray adds 4–5 hours to disposition time. An observational study was done to find out reasons for the low compliance with usage of Ottawa ankle rules. Methods: Initially observational study was done where 100 physicians were observed while they examine ankle and foot sprain cases for requesting x-ray. This was done without their knowledge. Then a questionnaire was distributed among 100 Emergency doctors to determine the factors that lead to non-compliance with use of Ottawa rules as screening tool for requesting x-ray. Result: In the initial observational study done on 100 cases we found that, only 20 patients presenting with symptoms of ankle /foot injury had bony injury ruled out by Ottawa rules and in 11 out of these, Ottawa rule was not done appropriately. The questionnaire was completed by 100 physicians. The result showed that 64% of physicians were afraid of the liability of missing fracture. 56% were not comfortable because of difficulty in follow up. 24% expressed that increased number of patients with limited time to assess patient thoroughly put a pressure to do X-ray. 48% were not aware of Ottawa rules. 32% mentioned that lack of emergency follow-up clinics for those with persistent symptoms compel them to request x-rays than to decide clinically. Conclusion: A proper follow-up system for patients discharged after screening will reduce the fear of liability of missing fractures. This will reduce the number of x-rays and length of stay in ED.

P086: Accuracy of the Ottawa Ankle Rules when applied by allied health providers in a pediatric emergency department

Introduction: The Ottawa Ankle Rules (OAR) are a clinical decision tool used to minimize unnecessary radiographs in ankle and foot injuries. The OAR has been shown to be a reliable rule to exclude fractures in children over 5 years of age. However, there is limited data to support its use by other health care workers in children. Our objective was to determine the sensitivity and specificity of the OAR, to detect clinically significant fractures, when applied by allied health providers (AHPs). Methods: Children aged 5 to 17 years presenting with an acute ankle or foot injury were enrolled. Patients assessed by a physician prior to an AHP, presenting for reassessment or &gt;24 hours after the injury, having open, penetrating or neurovascular injury, or multiple injuries were excluded. Patients with metabolic bone disease, a previous x-ray, or the inability to communicate or ambulate before the injury were also excluded. Baseline data on x-ray use was collected in a convenience sample of 100 patients. AHPs then completed an OAR learning module. Then in phase 2, AHPs applied the OAR to a convenience sample of 186 patients. Both AHPs and physicians performed inter-observer assessments. Results: When AHP’s applied the ankle portion of the OAR, the sensitivity was 88% (95% CI 46.7-99.3) and the specificity was 32.5% (95% CI 24.5-41.6) for clinically significant fractures. When AHP’s applied the foot portion of the OAR, the sensitivity was 87.5% (95% CI 46.7-99.3) and the specificity was 15.6% (95% CI 7.0-30.1) for clinically significant fractures. In total, 2 clinically significant fractures (1 foot fracture and 1 ankle fracture) were missed by AHP’s. Inter-observer agreement was κ=0.24 for the ankle rule and κ=0.32 for the foot rule. The missed ankle fracture had a positive OAR when performed by a physician as an inter-observer assessment. The missed foot fracture was a distal metatarsal fracture that was outside of the “foot zone” as defined by the OAR. Conclusion: The sensitivity of the OAR when applied by AHP’s was very good. Both clinically significant fractures that were missed by AHP’s would likely have been picked up by a physician assessment. More training and practice using the OAR would likely improve AHP’s inter-observer reliability. Our data suggest the OAR may be a useful tool for AHP’s to apply as a screening tool prior to physician assessment.

Utilidad de las reglas de Ottawa para el tobillo y el medio pie en Atención Primaria (II): análisis económico

ObjectiveTo demonstrate the ability of the Ottawa Ankle Rules (OAR) for Ankle and Mid Foot trauma in lowering the number of unnecessary radiographs in Primary Care and make a projection of the economic savings after implementation. MethodsA descriptive and cross-sectional study was conducted in which a prospective estimate of the costs was carried out on a sample of 72 patients with ankle and middle foot traumas who met the inclusion criteria, and enrolled consecutively in a Primary Care setting from 1 December 2013 to 30 April 2014. The OAR was applied and X-rays taken on all patients regardless of the outcomes. Total cost savings were calculated according to the number of avoidable X-rays, time of attendance, and the mean economic savings per episode per patient. ResultsIn the time period of the study, a financial saving of €1,290 was obtained, and 16 hours were saved. Over a period of one year, the savings were €8,690 and 110 hours were saved, and extrapolating the data to the Autonomous Community of Canarias a net saving of €557,661 and 7,054 hours would be achieved. ConclusionsOARs are valid and useful in Primary Care to select patients with Acute Ankle Trauma (AAT) and Acute MidFoot Trauma (AMFT) who do not need radiographs, which would assume a reduction of 68% in avoidable X-rays, with the resulting economic savings.

Implementation of the Ottawa ankle rules by general practitioners in an emergency department of a Turkish district hospital

The present objective was to assess implementation of the Ottawa ankle rules (OAR) as a method of fracture prediction in the emergency department (ED) of a Turkish state hospital. Patients who presented to the ED of our hospital with acute ankle injury were evaluated. All were examined by a general practitioner, after which a series of ankle and foot x-rays (anteroposterior and lateral) were performed. Radiography was examined by a radiologist and an orthopedic surgeon, both of whom were blinded to OAR results. Radiographic results were compared to results of OAR implementation. Sensitivity and specificity of the OAR in the diagnosis of fracture was calculated. A total of 251 (61.97%) patients were diagnosed as positive (+) for fracture after OAR implementation, 154 (38.02%) as negative (-). Clinically significant fracture was detected in 62 (15.3%) patients. A total of 61 (98.4%) patients with significant fracture were OAR (+); 1 (1.6%) was OAR (-). However, 190 (55.4%) patients without fracture were OAR (+); 153 (44.6%) were OAR (-) (p<0.001). Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of OAR implementation in the prediction of fracture were 98.39%, 44.61%, 24.30%, and 99.35%, respectively. Area under the curve (AUC) was 0.71. According to these results, it was determined that use of radiography could be reduced by 38.02% if the OAR were implemented. The OAR are a highly sensitive means of screening of patients with acute ankle and mid-foot injuries. Application of the OAR by well-trained general practitioners can lead to significant reduction in the number of x-rays performed, thereby reducing cost of treatment and radiation exposure, in addition to saving time for patients and staff.

Impact of a clinical decision support tool on adherence to the Ottawa Ankle Rules

ObjectiveThe objective of the study is to determine impact of a clinical decision support (CDS) tool on documented adherence to the Ottawa Ankle Rules (OAR) and utilization and yield of ankle/foot radiography, for emergency department patients with acute ankle injury. MethodsThis is a before-and-after intervention study conducted at a 793-bed, quaternary care, academic hospital from August 2012 to October 2013. Emergency department visits from adults with acute ankle injury 6 months before and 8 months after the intervention were included. The intervention embedded the OAR into a CDS tool integrated with a computerized physician order entry system, which had data capture capability and provided feedback at the time of ankle/foot radiography order. Primary outcome was rate of documented adherence to OAR. Secondary outcomes were utilization and yield (clinically significant fracture rates among patients with acute ankle injuries) of ankle/foot radiography. ResultsThe study population included 460 visits; 205 (44.6%) occurred preintervention. After intervention, documented OAR adherence increased from 55.9% (229/410) to 95.7% (488/510; P < .001). Utilization remained stable for ankle (77.5%; P = .800) and foot (48.6%; P = .514) radiography. Yield remained stable for ankle (17.8%; P = .891) and foot (19.8%; P = .889) radiography. DiscussionLack of documentation of key clinical data may hamper provider communication, delay care coordination, and result in legal liability. By embedding the OAR into a CDS tool, we achieved the same rate of documented adherence as previous onerous educational implementations while automating data collection/retrieval. In summary, implementation of the OAR into a CDS tool was associated with an increase in documented adherence to the OAR.

Validation of the Ottawa Ankle Rules for Acute Foot and Ankle Injuries.

The original and modified Ottawa Ankle Rules (OARs) were developed as clinical decision rules for use in emergency departments. However, the OARs have not been evaluated as an acute clinical evaluation tool. To evaluate the measures of diagnostic accuracy of the OARs in the acute setting. The OARs were applied to all appropriate ankle injuries at 2 colleges (athletics and club sports) and 21 high schools. The outcomes of OARs, diagnosis, and decision for referral were collected by the athletic trainers (ATs) at each of the locations. Contingency tables were created for evaluations completed within 1 h for which radiographs were obtained. From these data the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated. The OARs met the criteria for radiographs in 100 of the 124 cases, of which 38 were actually referred for imaging. Based on radiographic findings in an acute setting, the OARs (n = 38) had a high sensitivity (.88) and are good predictors to rule out the presence of a fracture. Low specificity (0.00) results led to a high number of false positives and low positive predictive values (.18). When applied during the first hour after injury the OARs significantly overestimate the need for radiographs. However, a negative finding rules out the need to obtain radiographs. It appears the AT's decision making based on the totality of the examination findings is the best filter in determining referral for radiographs.

Triage Nurse–Initiated Radiography Using the Ottawa Ankle Rules

The Ottawa Ankle Rules (OAR) are a well-validated set of guidelines for determining whether x-rays are necessary after an ankle injury. To determine the effect of triage nurse–initiated, OAR-informed ankle radiography on emergency department (ED) throughput, researchers conducted a prospective trial involving adults presenting with ankle injuries at a Vancouver, …

Effect of Triage Nurse Initiated Radiography Using the Ottawa Ankle Rules on Emergency Department Length of Stay at a Tertiary Centre.

To determine the effect of triage nurse initiated radiographs using the Ottawa Ankle Rules (OAR) on emergency department (ED) throughput. We hypothesized OAR use would reduce median ED length of stay (LOS) by 25 minutes or more. A randomized controlled trial was conducted at a tertiary centre ED with an annual census of over 90,000 patients. Adult patients presenting within 10 days of isolated blunt ankle trauma were eligible. Participants were randomly assigned to standard triage or OAR application by 15 explicitly trained triage nurses. Our primary outcome was ED LOS. Secondary outcomes included triage nurses' and patients' satisfaction. A power calculation indicated 142 patients were required. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the medians between the two groups. Of 176 patients with blunt ankle injury screened, 146 were enrolled (83.0%); baseline characteristics in the two groups were similar. The median/mean ED LOS in the control and OAR groups were 128/143 minutes and 108/115 minutes respectively (median difference 20 minutes; p=0.003). Agreement in OAR use between emergency physicians and nurses was moderate (kappa 0.46/0.77 for foot/ankle rule components), and satisfaction of both nurses and participants was high. Triage nurse initiated radiography using OAR leads to a statistically significant decrease of 20 minutes in the median ED LOS at a tertiary care centre. The overall impact of implementing such a process is likely site-specific, and the decision to do so should involve consideration of the local context.

Talus avulsion fractures: Are they accurately diagnosed?

Dorsal talus avulsion fractures occurring along the supination line of the foot can cause pain and discomfort. Examination of the foot and ankle using the Ottawa ankle rules does not include examination of the talus, an injury here is easily missed causing concern to the patient.This is a retrospective study carried out in a major trauma centre to look at the assessment and diagnosis of all patients with a dorsal talus and navicular avulsion fractures over a one year period.Nineteen patients with an isolated dorsal talus avulsion fracture and five patients with an isolated dorsal navicular fracture were included. The correct diagnosis was made in 12 of patients with isolated dorsal talus avulsion fractures, 7 patients were given an incorrect diagnosis after misreading of the radiograph. Four patients with a dorsal navicular avulsion fracture were given the correct diagnosis.If not correctly diagnosed on presentation patients can be overly concerned that a ‘fracture was missed’ which can lead to confusion and anxiety. Therefore these injuries need to be recognised early, promptly diagnosed, treated symptomatically and reassurance given.We recommend the routine palpation of the talus in addition to the examination set out in the Ottawa Ankle Rules and the close inspection of plain radiographs to adequately diagnose an injury in this area.

Validation of the Ottawa Ankle Rules in Indian Scenario.

Background:Ankle injuries are one of the most common presentations in emergency department. Ottawa Ankle Rules (OARs) have been used to predict the requirement of radiographs.Objectives:This study aimed to validate the OARs protocol for predicting ankle and midfoot fractures in Indian population.Patients and Methods:A prospective study was conducted in a teaching hospital in north India, during a period of nine months, including all patients who presented with complaints in the ankle region and evolution of less than 48 hours. The study excluded patients with multiple trauma and Glasgow coma scale of less than 15. All patients underwent clinical evaluation, followed by radiographs depending upon the location of the complaints. Radiographic study results were evaluated by orthopedic surgeons who had not seen the patient.Results:We evaluated 140 patients (84 males and 60 females) with the mean age of 35.2 (range, 8 - 76 years). Of the 140 evaluable patients, 71 had positive criteria for radiological evaluation of which 43 presented with fracture, 69 had negative criteria for radiography with no fracture. The sensitivity of OARs to detect fractures was 100%. The implementation of the OARs appears to have the potential to reduce the number of radiographs for the assessment of these patients by about 51%.Conclusions:The implementations of OARs have the potential to reduce the number of X-ray graphics needed to assess these patients by about 51%. The results of this study demonstrate no false negatives and are in agreement with results from other similar studies. It encourages us to implement these criteria in our services urgently, with all the resulting socio-economic implications.