Clinical Examination Results in Individuals With Functional Ankle Instability and Ankle-Sprain Copers

Context:

Why some individuals with ankle sprains develop functional ankle instability and others do not (ie, copers) is unknown. Current understanding of the clinical profile of copers is limited.

Objective:

To contrast individuals with functional ankle instability (FAI), copers, and uninjured individuals on both self-reported variables and clinical examination findings.

Design:

Cross-sectional study.

Setting:

Sports medicine research laboratory.

Patients or Other Participants:

Participants consisted of 23 individuals with a history of 1 or more ankle sprains and at least 2 episodes of giving way in the past year (FAI: Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool [CAIT] score = 20.52 ± 2.94, episodes of giving way = 5.8 ± 8.4 per month), 23 individuals with a history of a single ankle sprain and no subsequent episodes of instability (copers: CAIT score = 27.74 ± 1.69), and 23 individuals with no history of ankle sprain and no instability (uninjured: CAIT score = 28.78 ± 1.78).

Intervention(s):

Self-reported disability was recorded using the CAIT and Foot and Ankle Ability Measure for Activities of Daily Living and for Sports. On clinical examination, ligamentous laxity and tenderness, range of motion (ROM), and pain at end ROM were recorded.

Main Outcome Measure(s):

Questionnaire scores for the CAIT, Foot and Ankle Ability Measure for Activities of Daily Living and for Sports, ankle inversion and anterior drawer laxity scores, pain with palpation of the lateral ligaments, ankle ROM, and pain at end ROM.

Results:

Individuals with FAI had greater self-reported disability for all measures (P < .05). On clinical examination, individuals with FAI were more likely to have greater talar tilt laxity, pain with inversion, and limited sagittal-plane ROM than copers (P < .05).

Conclusions:

Differences in both self-reported disability and clinical examination variables distinguished individuals with FAI from copers at least 1 year after injury. Whether the deficits could be detected immediately postinjury to prospectively identify potential copers is unknown.Key Words: laxity, chronic ankle instability, giving way, range of motion

Key Points

• Compared with copers, participants with functional ankle instability had greater self-reported disability, talar tilt laxity, and pain with inversion and limited sagittal-plane range of motion.
• Identifying dynamic coping mechanisms may help to improve ankle-sprain prevention and treatment strategies.

Functional ankle instability (FAI) is a common sequela of ankle sprain, affecting approximately 32% to 47% of patients with symptoms including sensations of giving way, subsequent sprains, and instability.^1–3 Because these symptoms can limit physical activity and activities of daily living for years after injury^2,3 and decrease quality of life,¹ significant resources have been dedicated to elucidating the mechanisms behind this condition. However, despite extensive research in this area, the factors that contribute to the development and continuation of FAI are still not clear.^4–6In the search to clarify current understanding, recent reports^7,8 have focused on ankle instability definitions and patient inclusion criteria. Delahunt et al⁷ highlighted the varied inclusion criteria in studies of chronic ankle instability and FAI. They emphasized that variability in the pathologic group may partially account for inconsistent findings in the research literature. In contrast to the highly variable FAI groups, the comparison groups in studies of ankle instability are very consistent. Comparison groups are generally individuals who have never sprained either ankle (the uninjured or control group).⁹ Some authors^10,11 have studied copers as an alternative comparison group: individuals with a history of lateral ankle sprain but no recurrent instability for at least 1 year postinjury. Rather than compare individuals with FAI with individuals who have never sprained an ankle, it may be more appropriate to compare them with individuals who have been exposed to the initial risk factor (lateral ankle sprain) but have not gone on to develop FAI.¹⁰ Although the precise mechanism of coping is still unknown,^11–14 insight into coping mechanisms may help explain why individuals with FAI are unable to cope after ankle sprain. Additionally, once identified, successful coping mechanisms may be useful in treating FAI.In recent years, a number of authors have included comparison groups of ankle-sprain copers.^11–14 Differences in functional performance,¹¹ self-assessed disability,^11–14 ligamentous laxity,¹² injury history,^11–13 lower extremity kinematics,¹⁴ ankle-joint stiffness,¹³ fibular position,¹³ and postural control^13,15 have been investigated. However, more information about the clinical profiles of these individuals is needed because it may help us to prospectively differentiate potential copers and noncopers (postsprain but before development of FAI). Clinicians could then target individuals who are likely to have recurrent injury, leading to more efficient use of resources and enhanced injury-prevention efforts. Such a prospective clinical screening evaluation already exists for patients with anterior cruciate ligament injuries.¹⁶ However, the ankle-instability literature is still several steps away from this type of measure.We believe one of the next steps to better understand ankle-sprain copers is to compile a profile of a typical coper, consisting of injury history, self-reported disability, and clinical examination and to compare that profile with the profiles of both individuals with FAI and uninjured individuals. Thus, the primary purpose of our study was to explore potential group (FAI, coper, and uninjured) differences in both self-reported variables (injury history and disability) and clinical examination variables (laxity, pain, and range of motion).