Great. Thank you very much. Thank you for the opportunity to present today. I'd like to acknowledge my co-authors for this project. We have no disclosures to report. A bit of a background. Functional outcome scores are crucial in determining the effectiveness of various treatment modalities with the patient-reported outcomes gaining more attention over the last few years. Currently, there's a significant heterogeneity in functional outcome scores utilized in the foot and ankle literature and certainly no consensus on which metric to use on ankle osteochondral lesions. And meanwhile, the AOFAS clinical rating system has been used primarily over the last 15 years despite its lack of validity and reliability. And in comparison, there are multiple functional outcome scores that have been already validated used frequently in the knee literature in terms of the osteochondral lesions. So our primary objectives were to determine the frequency and distribution of the validated functional outcome scores using the literature for osteochondral lesions of the ankle and compare that to the knee literature from 2011 to 2020. Our secondary objectives were to assess if there's any correlation between the validated outcome score used to the journal impact factor, publication year, or level of evidence. This was systematic reviewing in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. We searched four databases, M-based, MEDLINES, and all in Scopus. Inclusion criteria included level one to four studies that evaluated functional outcomes in patients undergoing non-operative and operative management of osteochondral lesions from 2011 to 2020. We focused our analysis of the ankle literature in FAOS, FAM, and AOS as their validated general foot ankle outcome measure scores, with the recent study in 2020 demonstrating good reliability in patients with ankle osteochondral lesions. In the knee literature, we looked at IKDC, IQS, and DELISO. Our study analysis was done using SPSS. Functional outcome scores were used, were recorded and reported using frequency and proportions, Pearson correlation for the impact factor analysis, as well as the publication year analysis, and Spearman's rule correlation for the differences in the levels of evidence. In the knee literature, we identified 239 studies that were eligible for analysis. These were the top five functional outcome scores used in the literature, with the IKDC, IQS, and DELISO taking up a significant portion of them. All in all, about 50% of the scores were validated outcome scores that were used in the literature from 2011 to 2020, and 209 studies, or 87.4% of the studies, utilized at least one of the validated scoring systems in that time period. In the ankle literature, we identified 75 eligible studies. These were the top five functional outcome scores utilized, with the AOFS being the most predominant metric. All in all, the FAOS, FAAM, and AOS accounted only for 6.4% of the functional outcome scores supported, and only a total of 15% of the studies utilized at least one of these recommended scoring systems. To summarize the results, validated outcome scores were used primarily in the knee literature, and quite contrarily in the ankle literature, and this was statistically significant. There were no statistical significant correlations between the use of validated outcome scores in either the knee or the ankle literature to the general impact factor, publication year, or levels of evidence. This brings to our final discussion points and conclusion that very few studies have utilized validated outcome scores in the ankle post-condo literature currently. AOFS clinical rating system continues to be utilized primarily, despite its lack of validity and reliability, even after the provision statement made by the AOFS in 2011 discouraging its use. An extremely low frequency of validated outcome score used in the ankle literature may limit how well we evaluate our treatment effectiveness in ankle osteo-condo lesions. Thank you very much.

functional outcome scores

treatments

ankle osteochondral lesions

AOFAS clinical rating system

validity and reliability