Return to Sport After Foot and Ankle Surgery Is Inconsistently Defined and Assessed: A Systematic Review
4 affiliations
- 1Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine Richmond Virginia U.S.A.
- 2Department of Orthopaedics University of Alabama at Birmingham Birmingham Alabama U.S.A.
- 3Department of Orthopaedics Virginia Commonwealth University Health System Richmond Virginia U.S.A.
- 4Department of Orthopaedics Duke University Health System Durham North Carolina U.S.A.
Abstract
Purpose
To conduct a systematic review of return-to-sport (RTS) definitions in the orthopaedic literature, addressing common operative athletic foot and ankle pathologies including ankle instability, Achilles tendon ruptures or tendinopathy, and fifth metatarsal fractures.Methods
A systematic review was performed in adherence to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Cochrane, Embase, Medline, and CINAHL databases were searched for studies published through March 2024. Inclusion criteria were studies in which subjects were involved in some level of sports and received surgery for 1 of 3 common sports-related injuries: ankle instability, Achilles tendinopathy, and fifth metatarsal fracture. The primary outcome was each study's definition of RTS.Results
There were 145 articles that met all inclusion criteria. Of these, 73 articles investigated ankle instability, 56 investigated Achilles tendinopathy, and 16 investigated fifth metatarsal fracture. Seventy-nine articles (54.5%) had an unclear definition of RTS with 66 articles (45.5%) reporting a precise definition. Sixty-four articles (44.1%) provided an isolated binary metric reporting whether a patient returned to sport or failed to provide a method for determining the timepoint for RTS. Thirty-eight (26.2%) of the articles used an objective start criterion (e.g., resumption of competition), followed by custom (n = 27, 18.6%) and standardized patient-reported questionnaire use (n = 21, 14.5%).Conclusions
Most articles included in this systematic review did not provide an explicit definition of RTS or a clearly defined assessment methodology. When specified, RTS was assessed using objective events, custom questionnaires, or standardized patient-reported outcome measures, highlighting substantial heterogeneity in both RTS definitions and assessment approaches across foot and ankle literature.Level of evidence
Level IV, systematic review of Level I to IV studies.
Related
- Musculoskeletal symptoms among teleworkers assessed using validated tools: a systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis
- Local infiltration anesthesia (anterior field block) vs. general anesthesia for thyroidectomy: effects on operative time, complications, and cost—a GRADE-assessed systematic review and meta-analysis with subgroup analysis
- Metallic versus plastic stents for the management of biliary obstruction : A GRADE-assessed systematic review and meta-analysis
- Return to work and work abandonment in female breast cancer survivors: systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.
- Return‐To‐Work and Working Status After Surgery for Gastric and Esophageal Cancer: A Prospective Observational Study
BibTeX
@article{oikonomou2026return,
title = {{Return to Sport After Foot and Ankle Surgery Is Inconsistently Defined and Assessed: A Systematic Review}},
author = {Konstantinos Oikonomou and Kush Savsani and Phillip Wyatt and John Cyrus and Brady Ernst and Albert T Anastasio and Conor N O'Neill and J Brett Goodloe and Annunziato Amendola},
journal = {Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.1002/ars2.70100},
url = {https://europepmc.org/article/PMC/PMC13717671},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Return to Sport After Foot and Ankle Surgery Is Inconsistently Defined and Assessed: A Systematic Review
AU - Konstantinos Oikonomou
AU - Kush Savsani
AU - Phillip Wyatt
AU - John Cyrus
AU - Brady Ernst
AU - Albert T Anastasio
AU - Conor N O'Neill
AU - J Brett Goodloe
AU - Annunziato Amendola
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/29
JO - Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation
DO - 10.1002/ars2.70100
UR - https://europepmc.org/article/PMC/PMC13717671
AB - Purpose To conduct a systematic review of return-to-sport (RTS) definitions in the orthopaedic literature, addressing common operative athletic foot and ankle pathologies including ankle instability, Achilles tendon ruptures or tendinopathy, and fifth metatarsal fractures.Methods A systematic review was performed in adherence to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Cochrane, Embase, Medline, and CINAHL databases were searched for studies published through March 2024. Inclusion criteria were studies in which subjects were involved in some level of sports and received surgery for 1 of 3 common sports-related injuries: ankle instability, Achilles tendinopathy, and fifth metatarsal fracture. The primary outcome was each study's definition of RTS.Results There were 145 articles that met all inclusion criteria. Of these, 73 articles investigated ankle instability, 56 investigated Achilles tendinopathy, and 16 investigated fifth metatarsal fracture. Seventy-nine articles (54.5%) had an unclear definition of RTS with 66 articles (45.5%) reporting a precise definition. Sixty-four articles (44.1%) provided an isolated binary metric reporting whether a patient returned to sport or failed to provide a method for determining the timepoint for RTS. Thirty-eight (26.2%) of the articles used an objective start criterion (e.g., resumption of competition), followed by custom (n = 27, 18.6%) and standardized patient-reported questionnaire use (n = 21, 14.5%).Conclusions Most articles included in this systematic review did not provide an explicit definition of RTS or a clearly defined assessment methodology. When specified, RTS was assessed using objective events, custom questionnaires, or standardized patient-reported outcome measures, highlighting substantial heterogeneity in both RTS definitions and assessment approaches across foot and ankle literature.Level of evidence Level IV, systematic review of Level I to IV studies.
SN - 2666-061X
ER -