Blog Post Author Biography: Lauren Forsyth is a Research Associate in the department of Biomedical Engineering at the University of Strathclyde and a Strength and Conditioning Coach. Dr Forsyth’s research aims to develop objective functional assessment techniques and rehabilitation interventions for people with chronic ankle instability.
Citation: Picot B, François Fourchet, Lopes R, et al. Low Ankle-GO Score While Returning to Sport After Lateral Ankle Sprain Leads to a 9-fold Increased Risk of Recurrence: A Two-year Prospective Cohort Study. Sports Medicine – Open. 2024;10(1). doi: 10.1186/s40798-024-00693-w
Take-to-the-clinic message: The Ankle-GO score is an objective assessment of functional performance and self-reported function which can be used to guide return to sport (RTS) decisions after lateral ankle sprain (LAS) and inform clinical management. When patients scored low of the Ankle-GO their 2-year risk of ankle sprain recurrence was nine times higher. Women also tended to have a fourfold higher risk of reinjury within two years, despite an initial Ankle-GO score comparable to men. Clinicians should therefore be more cautious of lower scores for women.
Background: Lateral ankle sprain (LAS) reported as the most common sports-related injury, followed by high recurrence and development of CAI. Despite impairments and residual functional deficiencies, research shows that nearly 50% of patients return to sport (RTS) within three days after LAS, and 80% within a week. However, there is no published evidence-based criteria to guide a patient’s return to sport (RTS), which may explain the high recurrence. The Ankle-GO™ is a valid and reliable score which aims to score patients to facilitate a safe RTS, while minimising the risk of recurrent injuries.
Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of the Ankle-GO – a new functional score for LAS – to distinguish patients at risk of recurrent LAS within two years after the initial injury.
Methods: The study recruited 64 patients (36 Male/28 Female) from the same clinic from January-August 2021. All participants were recruited within one month of initial LAS, and, following consultation, each participant received personalised rehabilitation for 8 weeks. Two months after LAS each participant completed the Ankle-GO score. The Ankle-GO score includes two self-reported questionnaires (The Foot and Ankle Ability Measure and the Ankle Ligament Reconstruction-Return to Sport after Injury) and four functional tests (single-leg stance test, modified star excursion balance test, side hop test, and figure-of-8 test). Each item is scored with a maximum total score of 25 points. A lower score indicates lower function. The rate of reinjury was recorded two years following the initial injury. Fifty-four participants (23 Male/31 Female) reported whether they had suffered a recurrent LAS (ie. a new LAS of the same location and type), and the mechanism of the reinjury (ie. contact or non-contact).
Results: Eighteen participants suffered a reinjury (33.3%) with non-contact mechanisms at the two-year follow up. The Ankle-GO score at two-months post-LAS was lower in patients with a recurrent LAS (by 3.7 points) and predicted the risk of reinjury. An Ankle-GO score of less than eight points indicated a 9-times higher risk of recurrent LAS. The same cut-off score (8 points) identified a return to preinjury level of sports four months after LAS. Women and men reported comparable Ankle-GO scores, however women tended to have a 4-times higher risk of recurrent LAS after two years.
Rolling the field forward: The Ankle-GO score offers a new objective criterion for RTS after LAS. This can aid clinical decision making to address the high recurrence rates of LAS. These recurring injuries are often explained by a lack of informed guidance to RTS.
Recently the PAASS framework was published to inform the RTS decision (PAASS: Pain, Ankle impairments, Athlete perception, Sensorimotor control, Sport/functional performance). The Ankle-GO is a step to establishing a specific objective criterion. It should be noted that the Ankle-GO does not include all items related to the PAASS framework. Thus, to gain a broader perspective during clinical assessment the Ankle-GO score may need to be used in conjunction with other clinical assessments.
Question for the researchers: The ANKLE-GO was conducted on participants two months following initial injury, and after a personalized rehabilitation plan had been administered. Do the researchers know how the personalized programme affected the Ankle-GO scores, and do they have a recommended time point for clinicians of when the Ankle-GO could be used? As a result, how may this affect the reinjury risk for patients?
International Ankle Consortium 