Musculoskeletal disorders

..................................................

Ankle sprain
Search date March 2007
Peter Struijs and Gino Kerkhoffs

ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Injury of the lateral ligament complex of the ankle joint occurs in about one per 10,000 people a day, accounting for a
quarter of all sports injuries. METHODS AND OUTCOMES: We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical
question: What are the effects of treatment strategies for acute ankle ligament ruptures? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane
Library and other important databases up to March 2007 (BMJ Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website
for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Admin-
istration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). RESULTS: We found 35 systematic reviews,
RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS: In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: cold
treatment, diathermy, functional treatment, homeopathic ointment, immobilisation, physiotherapy, surgery, and ultrasound.

QUESTIONS
What are the effects of treatment strategies for acute ankle ligament ruptures?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

INTERVENTIONS
TREATING ANKLE SPRAIN Diathermy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Beneficial Homeopathic ointment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Functional treatment (early mobilisation with use of an Physiotherapy (physical therapy) New . . . . . . . . . 10
external support) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Unlikely to be beneficial
Likely to be beneficial Ultrasound . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Immobilisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
To be covered in future updates
Trade-off between benefits and harms Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs
Surgery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Prevention of ankle sprain

Unknown effectiveness
Cold treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Key Points

• Injury of the lateral ligament complex of the ankle joint occurs in about one per 10,000 people a day, accounting
for a quarter of all sports injuries.
Pain may be localised to the lateral side of the ankle.
Residual complaints include joint instability, stiffness, and intermittent swelling, and are more likely to occur after
more extensive cartilage damage.
Recurrent sprains can add new damage and increase the risk of long-term degeneration of the joint.
• Despite consensus views that immobilisation is more effective than no treatment, studies have shown that immo-
bilisation worsens function and symptoms in the short- and long-term compared with functional treatment.
Surgery and immobility may have similar outcomes in terms of pain, swelling, and recurrence, but surgery may
lead to increased joint stability.
• Functional treatment , consisting of early mobilisation and an external support, improves function and stability of
the ankle compared with minimal treatment, or immobilisation.
We don't know which is the most effective functional treatment, or how functional treatments compare with surgery.
• Ultrasound has not been shown to improve symptoms or function compared with sham ultrasound.
Cold treatment may reduce oedema compared with heat or a contrast bath, but has not been shown to improve
symptoms compared with placebo.
We don't know whether diathermy , homeopathic ointment , or physiotherapy (physical therapy) improve
function compared with placebo, as few studies have been found.

DEFINITION Ankle sprain is an injury of the lateral ligament complex of the ankle joint. The injury is graded on
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
the basis of severity. Grade I is a mild stretching of the ligament complex without
joint instability; grade II is a partial rupture of the ligament complex with mild instability of the joint
(such as isolated rupture of the anterior talofibular ligament); and grade III involves complete rupture
© BMJ Publishing Group Ltd 2007. All rights reserved. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Clinical Evidence 2007;09:1115
 Musculoskeletal disorders
Ankle sprain
of the ligament complex with instability of the joint.This gradation has limited practical consequences
since both grade II and III injuries are treated similarly, and grade I injuries need no specific treatment
[6]
after diagnosis. Unless otherwise stated, studies included in this review did not specify the
grades of injury included, or included both grade II and II.

INCIDENCE/ Ankle sprain is a common problem in acute medical care, occurring at a rate of about one injury
[7]
PREVALENCE per 10,000 people a day. Injuries of the lateral ligament complex of the ankle form a quarter of
[7]
all sports injuries.

AETIOLOGY/ The usual mechanism of injury is inversion and adduction (usually referred to as supination) of the
RISK FACTORS plantar flexed foot. Predisposing factors are a history of ankle sprains, ligament hyperlaxity syn-
drome, and specific malalignment, like crus varum and pes cavo-varus .

PROGNOSIS Some sports (e.g. basketball, football/soccer, and volleyball) are associated with a particularly high
incidence of ankle injuries. Pain and intermittent swelling are the most frequent residual problems,
[4]
often localised on the lateral side of the ankle. Other residual complaints include mechanical
instability and stiffness. People with more extensive cartilage damage have a higher incidence of
[4]
residual complaints. In the long term, the initial traumatic cartilage damage can lead to degener-
ative changes, especially if there is persistent or recurrent instability. Every further sprain has the
potential to add new damage.

AIMS OF To reduce swelling and pain; to restore the stability of the ankle joint.
INTERVENTION
OUTCOMES Return to pre-injury level of sports; return to pre-injury level of work; pain; swelling; subjective in-
stability; objective instability; recurrent injury; ankle mobility; complications; patient satisfaction,
quality of life, adverse effects of treatment.

METHODS BMJ Clinical Evidence search and appraisal March 2007. The following databases were used to
identify studies for this systematic review: Medline 1966 to March 2007, Embase 1980 to March
2007, and The Cochrane Library (all databases) 2007, Issue 1. Additional searches were carried
out using these websites: NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) — all databases,
Turning Research into Practice (TRIP), and National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence
(NICE). Abstracts of the studies retrieved from the initial search were assessed by an information
specialist. Selected studies were then sent to the author for additional assessment, using pre-de-
termined criteria to identify relevant studies. Study design criteria for evaluation in this review were:
published systematic reviews and RCTs in any language. All RCTs were sent for consideration,
so there was no minimum blinding, number of participants, or percentage of participants followed-
up. There was no minimum length of follow-up required to evaluate studies. In addition, we use a
regular surveillance protocol to capture harms alerts from organisations such as the US Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
(MHRA), which are added to the reviews as required. We have performed a GRADE evaluation of
the quality of evidence for interventions included in this review ( see table, p 13 ).

QUESTION What are the effects of treatment strategies for acute ankle ligament ruptures?

OPTION IMMOBILISATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Symptom relief
Compared with functional treatment Immobilisation may be less effective at reducing swelling or pain at 6–12 weeks
compared with functional treatment, but may have similar effectiveness at 1 year ( low-quality evidence ).

Compared with surgery Immobilisation may be no more effective at reducing swelling or pain compared with surgery
(low-quality evidence).

Semi-rigid cast compared with rigid cast Semi-rigid casts may be no more effective at reducing pain or swelling at
4 weeks compared with rigid casts (low-quality evidence).

Joint stability
Compared with functional treatment Immobilisation may be more effective at improving joint stability at 6–12 weeks
compared with functional treatment, but may have similar effectiveness at 1 year (low-quality evidence).

Compared with surgery Immobilisation may be less effective at reducing objective joint instability compared with
surgery, but may be as effective at reducing subjective joint instability (low-quality evidence).

Recovery time
© BMJ Publishing Group Ltd 2007. All rights reserved. ............................................................ 2
 Musculoskeletal disorders
Ankle sprain
Compared with ultrasound Immobilisation may be as effective as ultrasound at improving recovery times at 7 days,
but may be less effective at 14 days (low-quality evidence).

Return to sports
Compared with functional treatment Immobilisation may be less effective at reducing the time taken to return to
sports compared with functional treatment (low-quality evidence).

Compared with surgery Immobilisation is more effective at reducing the time taken to return to sports compared with
surgery ( moderate-quality evidence ).

Return to work
Compared with functional treatment Immobilisation is less effective at reducing the time taken to return to work
compared with functional treatment (moderate-quality evidence).

Semi-rigid cast compared with rigid cast Semi-rigid casts are more effective at 4 weeks at reducing the time taken
to return to work compared with rigid casts (moderate-quality evidence).

Recurrence of ankle injuries

Compared with surgery Immobilisation may be no more effective at reducing recurrence of ankle sprains compared
with surgery (low-quality evidence).

Note
We found no clinically important results about immobilisation compared with no treatment in people with ankle sprain.
There is consensus that immobilisation is more effective than no treatment.

For GRADE evaluation of interventions for ankle sprains, see table, p 13 .

Benefits: Immobilisation versus no treatment:

We found no RCTs comparing immobilisation versus no treatment.

Immobilisation versus functional treatment:

[8] [9]
We found one systematic review and one subsequent RCT. The systematic review included
any inpatient, outpatient, or home-based intervention programme consisting of immobilisation with
[8]
or without a plaster cast. It included any trials comparing immobilisation versus either another
type or duration of immobilisation or a functional treatment for injuries to the lateral ligament
complex of the ankle, and it reported outcomes at short-, intermediate-, or long-term follow-up (see
comment below). The review analysed a variety of different forms of functional treatment, including
strapping, bracing, use of an orthosis, tubigrips, bandages, elastic bandages, and special shoes
for at least 5 weeks. It found that functional treatment significantly improved seven outcomes
measured at different follow-up times compared with immobilisation. At short-term follow-up, it
found that functional treatment significantly reduced the proportion of people with persistent swelling
compared with immobilisation (search date 2001; 3 RCTs; 260 people; RR 1.7, 95% CI 1.2 to 2.6)
and significantly decreased the proportion of people not returning to work (2 RCTs; 150 people;
RR 5.75, 95% CI 1.01 to 32.71). At intermediate-term follow-up, it found that immobilisation signif-
icantly increased objective instability, as assessed with stress x ray, compared with functional
treatment (1 RCT; 106 people; WMD in talar tilt 2.6°, 95% CI 1.2° to 4.0°), and found that functional
treatment significantly increased patient satisfaction compared with immobilisation (proportion of
people not satisfied with treatment 2 RCTs; 123 people; RR 4.2, 95% CI 1.1 to 16.1). At long-term
follow-up, it found that functional treatment significantly decreased the proportion of people not
returning to sports compared with immobilisation (5 RCTs; 360 people; RR 1.9, 95% CI 1.2 to 2.9),
the time taken to return to work (6 RCTs; 604 people; WMD 8.2 days, 95% CI 6.3 days to 10.2
days), and the time taken to return to sports (3 RCTs; 195 people; WMD 4.9 days, 95% CI 1.5 days
to 8.3 days). At longer-term follow-up, differences between immobilisation and functional treatment
in persistent swelling, objective instability, proportion of people not returning to work, and patient
satisfaction were no longer significant. A subgroup analysis using only “high quality” RCTs (defined
as scoring at least 50% on a recognised quality-evaluation tool) found that functional treatment
significantly reduced the time taken to return to work compared with immobilisation (2 RCTs; 262
[8] [10]
people; WMD 12.9 days, 95% CI 7.1 days to 18.7 days). The subsequent RCT compared
3 weeks of functional treatment (strapping plus early controlled mobilisation) versus immobilisation
[9]
in a plaster cast. It found that functional treatment significantly reduced time taken to return to
normal physical training, and reduced pain, swelling, and subjective instability compared with im-
mobilisation at 3 months (121 semiprofessional sports people with acute grade III lateral ankle lig-
ament; mean time to return to normal training: 5.4 weeks with functional treatment v 6.3 weeks
with immobilisation; P = 0.02; pain: 35% with functional treatment v 61% with immobilisation;
P = 0.008; AR for swelling: 16% with functional treatment v 49% with immobilisation; P < 0.01; AR
for subjective instability: 22% with functional treatment v 54% with immobilisation; P = 0.001; CI
for differences in outcomes not reported). However, the RCT found no significant differences between
© BMJ Publishing Group Ltd 2007. All rights reserved. ............................................................ 3
 Musculoskeletal disorders
Ankle sprain
treatments for pain, swelling, or subjective instability at 12 months (P greater than or equal to 0.3
[9]
for all comparisons).

Immobilisation versus surgery:

We found one systematic review, which compared surgery ( anatomic reconstruction ) versus im-
mobilisation alone for acute injuries to the lateral ligament complex of the ankle (see comment
[6]
below). It found that surgery significantly reduced the proportion of people who did not return
to sports compared with immobilisation (search date 2000; 3 RCTs; 267 people; RR 0.48, 95% CI
0.31 to 0.76), and who had objective instability (6 RCTs; 457 people; RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.21 to
0.60). It found no significant difference between surgery and immobilisation in recurrence (8 RCTs;
639 people; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.18), pain (8 RCTs; 654 people; RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.33 to
1.23), subjective instability (8 RCTs; 608 people; RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.37), or swelling (9
RCTs; 723 people; RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.18).

Immobilisation versus ultrasound:

See benefits of ultrasound, p 8 .

Different forms of immobilisation:

[6]
We found one systematic review. One RCT identified by the review found that a semirigid cast
for 4 weeks significantly reduced the time taken to return to work compared with a rigid cast (search
[6]
date 2000; 1 RCT; 36 people; WMD 3.80 days, 95% CI 1.16 days to 6.44 days). It found no
significant difference in pain, swelling, or objective instability at short-term follow-up (1 RCT; 57
people; RR for pain 2.10, 95% CI 0.69 to 6.35; RR for swelling 1.59, 95% CI 0.80 to 3.17; RR for
objective instability 0.60, 95% CI 0.12 to 3.00).

Harms: Immobilisation versus functional treatment:

[8] [9]
The systematic review and subsequent RCT did not report on harms.

Immobilisation versus surgery:

Two RCTs identified by the review found fewer cases of deep venous thrombosis after cast immo-
bilisation than after surgery (deep venous thrombosis: 2/47 [4%] after cast immobilisation v 3/34
[9%] after surgery in first RCT; 0/33 [0%] after cast immobilisation v 1/32 [3%] after surgery in
[6] [11]
second RCT). A third RCT identified by the review found an equal risk of deep vein throm-
[6]
bosis in both groups (1/50 [2%] after cast immobilisation v 1/50 [2%] after surgery). Other RCTs
did not specifically address harms. Other known harms of immobilisation include pain and impairment
[11]
in activities of daily living.

Comment: Immobilisation versus no treatment:

There is consensus that immobilisation is more effective in the treatment of ankle sprain than no
treatment.

Immobilisation versus functional treatment:

In the systematic review, follow-up periods for outcome measures were categorised as short term
(< 6 weeks of randomisation), intermediate term (6 weeks to 1 year), or long term (1–2 years after
[8]
treatment). The review excluded trials that focused on the treatment of chronic instability or post-
surgical treatment, unless such injuries occurred in under 10% of the whole study population. The
subsequent study included only semiprofessional sports people, so the results may not be applicable
[9]
to the general population.

Immobilisation versus surgery:

The systematic review noted that all included RCTs had methodological flaws, and there was insuf-
ficient evidence to determine the relative effectiveness of surgical and conservative treatment (
[6]
see comment on surgery, p 7 ).

OPTION FUNCTIONAL TREATMENT (EARLY MOBILISATION WITH USE OF AN EXTERNAL SUP-

PORT). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Joint stability
Compared with minimal treatment Functional treatment (early mobilisation using an external support) is more effective
at reducing the risk of the ankle giving way compared with minimal treatment ( high-quality evidence ).

Compared with immobilisation Functional treatment may be less effective at improving joint stability at 6–12 weeks
compared with immobilisation, but may be as effective at 1 year ( low-quality evidence ).

Compared with surgery We don't know whether functional treatment may be more effective at reducing joint instabil-
ity compared with surgery ( very low-quality evidence ).

© BMJ Publishing Group Ltd 2007. All rights reserved. ............................................................ 4

 Musculoskeletal disorders
Ankle sprain
Semirigid ankle support compared with an elastic bandage Semirigid ankle support may be more effective at reducing
subjective joint stability compared with an elastic bandage (very low-quality evidence).

Symptom relief
Compared with ultrasound Functional treatment is more effective at relieving pain, increasing ankle range of motion,
and improving ankle function compared with detuned ultrasound ( moderate-quality evidence ).

Compared with surgery We don't know whether functional treatment may be more effective at reducing pain or
swelling compared with surgery (very low-quality evidence).

Compared with immobilisation Functional treatment may be more effective at reducing swelling or pain at 6–12 weeks
compared with immobilisation, but may be as effective at 1 year (low-quality evidence).

Different functional treatments compared with each other We don’t know which functional treatment may be more
effective at relieving symptoms of ankle sprain (very low-quality evidence).

Return to work
Compared with immobilisation Functional treatment is more effective at reducing the time taken to return to work
compared with immobilisation ( moderate-quality evidence ).

Early functional treatment compared with conventional treatment Early functional treatment with an elastic wrapping,
early full weight bearing, and proprioceptive training, may be more effective at reducing the time taken to return to
work in people with grade II and grade III ankle injuries compared with conventional treatment with an elastic bandage
and partial weightbearing until pain subsides (very low-quality evidence).

Semirigid ankle support compared with an elastic bandage Semirigid ankle support may be more effective at reducing
the time taken to return to work compared with an elastic bandage (very low-quality evidence).

Return to sports
Compared with immobilisation Functional treatment may be more effective at reducing the time taken to return to
sports compared with immobilisation (very low-quality evidence).

Compared with surgery Functional treatment may be no more effective at reducing the time taken to return to sports
compared with surgery (low-quality evidence).

Early functional treatment compared with conventional treatment Early functional treatment with an elastic wrapping,
early full weight bearing and proprioceptive training may be more effective at reducing the time taken to return to
sports in people with grade II and grade III ankle injuries compared with conventional treatment with an elastic bandage
and partial weightbearing until pain subsides (very low-quality evidence).

Semirigid ankle support compared with an elastic bandage Semirigid ankle support may be more effective at reducing
the time taken to return to sports compared with an elastic bandage (very low-quality evidence).

Recurrence of ankle injuries

Compared with surgery We don't know whether functional treatment may be more effective at reducing recurrence
of ankle sprains compared with surgery (very low-quality evidence).

Different functional treatments compared with each other Semirigid devices may be no more effective in reducing
recurrence of ankle sprains in people with ankle injures compared with a tape, and early functional treatment may
be no more effective compared with conventional treatment (low-quality evidence).

For GRADE evaluation of interventions for ankle sprains, see table, p 13 .

Benefits: Functional treatment versus minimal treatment:

[12] [13]
We found one systematic review and one subsequent RCT. The review compared functional
treatment versus a minimal treatment policy. It found that functional treatment significantly reduced
the risk of the ankle giving way (search date 1998; 3 RCTs; 214 people; RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.17 to
[12]
0.71). The review found no significant difference between treatments in the proportion of people
[12]
with residual pain (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.02). The subsequent RCT compared mortise
[13]
separation adjustment versus detuned ultrasound. It found that mobilisation significantly reduced
pain, increased ankle range of motion, and improved ankle function at 1 month (30 people with
subacute or chronic ankle sprain without gross mechanical instability; results presented graphically).

Functional treatment versus immobilisation:

See benefits of immobilisation, p 2 .

© BMJ Publishing Group Ltd 2007. All rights reserved. ............................................................ 5

 Musculoskeletal disorders
Ankle sprain
Functional treatment versus surgery:
[6] [14]
We found one systematic review and one subsequent RCT, which compared surgery ( ten-
odesis or anatomic reconstruction ) versus functional treatment alone (see comment below). The
review found no significant difference between surgery and functional treatment in return to sports
(search date 2000; 2 RCTs; 216 people; RR 0.6, 95% CI 0.3 to 1.3), recurrence (5 RCTs; 421
people; RR 1.2, 95% CI 0.8 to 1.8), pain (5 RCTs; 413 people; RR 1.0, 95% CI 0.7 to 1.6), subjective
instability (5 RCTs; 464 people; RR 0.9, 95% CI 0.7 to 1.3), objective instability (4 RCTs; 222
people; RR 0.6, 95% CI 0.3 to 1.2), and swelling (5 RCTs; 469 people; RR 0.9, 95% CI 0.6 to 1.5;
[6]
see comment below). The subsequent RCT compared functional treatment versus surgery
[14]
(anatomic reconstruction). Functional treatment consisted of a non-weight-bearing cast for 5
days followed by elastic bandaging or taping for 6 weeks. People in both groups received a standard
rehabilitation programme. The RCT found that functional treatment was less effective than surgery
for residual pain, subjective instability, and recurrent sprains after 6–11 years' follow-up (370 people
with rupture of at least 1 lateral ankle ligament [317 people analysed]; AR for pain: 25% with func-
tional treatment v 16% with surgery, RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.44; AR for subjective instability:
32% with functional treatment v 20% with surgery, RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.38; recurrent sprains:
34% with functional treatment v 22% with surgery, RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.22).

Different types of functional treatment:

[15]
We found one systematic review (search date 2001; 1 RCT; 122 people) and four additional
[16] [17] [18] [19]
or subsequent RCTs. The review compared different types of functional treatment
(elastic bandage, tape, lace-up ankle support, and semirigid ankle support) in people with an acute
[15]
injury to the lateral ligament complex of the ankle. It reported outcomes at short-, intermediate-
, and long-term follow-up (see comment below). At short-term follow-up, it found that lace-up ankle
support significantly reduced persistent swelling compared with semirigid ankle support; (RR 4.2,
95% CI 1.3 to 14.0), elastic bandage (1 RCT; 122 people; RR 5.5, 95% CI 1.7 to 17.8), and tape
(1 RCT; 119 people; RR 4.1, 95% CI 1.2 to 13.7). It found that a semirigid ankle support reduced
the proportion of people with subjective instability, the time taken to return to work, and the time
to return to sports compared with an elastic bandage (subjective instability: 1 RCT; 124 people;
RR 8.00, 95% CI 1.03 to 62.07; time to return to work: 2 RCTs; 157 people; WMD 4.2 days, 95%
CI 2.4 days to 6.0 days; time to return to sports: 1 RCT; 84 people; WMD 9.6 days, 95% CI 6.3
[15]
days to 12.8 days). It found no other significant differences in outcomes between treatments
(see comment below), and no significant differences between different types of functional treatments
[15]
at intermediate- or long-term follow-up. The first additional RCT compared a semirigid device
versus tape and found no significant difference between treatments in the proportion of people with
recurrent sprains (116 people with all grades of ankle sprain; 4% with semirigid device v 0% with
[16]
tape). The second additional RCT compared two types of tape treatment and found no significant
differences between treatment groups in pain, swelling, or range of movement 5–7 days after
treatment (119 people not requiring surgery, treated within 24 hours of injury; AR for pain: 8% v
[17]
5%; swelling: 58% v 47%; limited range of movement: 36% v 47%). The third additional RCT
compared early functional treatment (elastic wrapping and early full weightbearing and proprioceptive
training) versus conventional treatment (elastic bandage and partial weightbearing until pain sub-
[18]
sided) in 86 people with grade II and III ankle sprains. After 1 week, further treatment was
[18]
similar (identical rehabilitation instructions). The RCT found that early functional treatment
significantly reduced time taken to return to work (5.6 days with early functional treatment v 10.2
days with conventional treatment; P < 0.05) and time to return to sports (9.6 days with early func-
tional treatment v 19.2 days with conventional treatment; P < 0.05) but found no significant difference
between groups in final functional outcome or in ankle sprain recurrence (reported as not significant,
P value not provided). The fourth subsequent RCT compared elastic wrap, air-stirrup ankle brace,
air-stirrup ankle brace plus elastic wrap, and cast immobilisation for 10 days in 93 people with
[19]
grade II ankle sprains. Of these, 68/93 (73%) completed the 6-month follow-up. Other than the
difference in device, functional treatment strategies were identical. It found no significant difference
in outcomes between groups at 6 months' follow-up.

Harms: Functional treatment versus minimal treatment:

The review and additional RCTs did not report on harms.

Functional treatment versus immobilisation:

See harms of immobilisation, p 2 .

Different types of functional treatment:

[20]
Allergic reactions and skin problems have been recorded with tape. Two RCTs identified by
the systematic review which compared different functional treatments, found that tape treatment
was associated with significantly more complications compared with elastic bandage (0/104 [0%]
[15]
with elastic bandage v 8/104 [8%] with tape; RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.86). Most of these
complications were skin problems (absolute numbers with skin problems not reported). The four
[16] [17] [18] [19]
additional RCTs did not assess harms.
© BMJ Publishing Group Ltd 2007. All rights reserved. ............................................................ 6
 Musculoskeletal disorders
Ankle sprain
Functional treatment versus surgery:
[6] [14]
The systematic review and the subsequent RCT did not assess harms.

Comment: Functional treatment versus surgery:

The review noted that all included RCTs had methodological flaws, and there was insufficient evi-
dence to determine the relative effectiveness of surgical and conservative treatment ( see comment
[6]
on surgery, p 7 ).

Different types of functional treatment:

The systematic review reported follow-up periods for outcome measures as short term (< 6 weeks
[15]
of treatment), intermediate term (6 weeks to 1 year), or long term (1–2 years after treatment).
It noted that definitive conclusions were hampered by the variety of treatments used and the incon-
sistency of reported follow-up times, and no definite conclusions concerning the optimal functional
[15]
treatment strategy could be drawn.

OPTION SURGERY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Symptom relief
Compared with immobilisation Surgery may be no more effective at reducing swelling or pain compared with immo-
bilisation ( low-quality evidence ).

Compared with functional treatment We don't know whether surgery may be more effective at reducing pain or
swelling compared with functional treatment ( very low-quality evidence ).

Joint stability
Compared with immobilisation Surgery may be more effective at reducing objective joint instability compared with
immobilisation, but no more effective at reducing subjective joint instability (low-quality evidence).

Compared with functional treatment We don't know whether surgery may be more effective at reducing joint instabil-
ity compared with functional treatment (very low-quality evidence).

Return to sports
Compared with immobilisation Surgery is less effective at decreasing the time taken to return to sports compared
with immobilisation ( moderate-quality evidence ).

Compared with functional treatment Surgery may be no more effective at reducing the time taken to return to sports
compared with functional treatment (low-quality evidence).

Recurrence of ankle injuries

Compared with immobilisation Surgery may be no more effective at reducing recurrence of ankle sprains compared
with immobilisation (low-quality evidence).

Compared with functional treatment We don't know whether surgery may be more effective at reducing recurrence
of ankle sprains compared with functional treatment (very low-quality evidence).

Adverse effects
Surgery is associated with neurological injuries, infections, bleeding, osteoarthritis, and death.

For GRADE evaluation of interventions for ankle sprains, see table, p 13 .

Benefits: Surgery versus immobilisation:

See benefits of immobilisation, p 2 .

Surgery versus functional treatment:

See benefits of functional treatment, p 4 .

Harms: Neurological injuries, infections, bleeding, osteoarthritis, and death are known harms of surgery.
[11] [21] [22]
Two RCTs found fewer cases of deep venous thrombosis after cast immobilisation
compared with surgery (2/47 [4%] with cast immobilisation v 3/34 [9%] with surgery in first RCT;
[6] [11]
0/33 [0%] with cast immobilisation v 1/32 [3%] with surgery in second RCT). One RCT found
an equal occurrence of deep vein thrombosis in both groups (1/50 [2%] with cast immobilisation v
[6] [23]
1/50 [2%] with surgery). Other RCTs found dysaesthesia in 4–12% of people after surgery.
[24] [25] [26] [27] [28]
Wound necrosis after surgery was reported in two RCTs (2/73 [3%] with
[26] [27]
surgery; 3/45 [7%] with surgery ). Tenderness of the scar was reported in six RCTs after
[24] [25] [28] [29] [30] [31]
surgical intervention, occurring in 2–19% of people.

Comment: None.

© BMJ Publishing Group Ltd 2007. All rights reserved. ............................................................ 7

 Musculoskeletal disorders
Ankle sprain
OPTION ULTRASOUND. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Symptom relief
Compared with placebo Ultrasound is no more effective at improving symptoms of an ankle sprain at 7 days compared
with placebo ( high-quality evidence ).

Compared with functional treatment Detuned ultrasound is less effective at relieving pain, increasing ankle range of
motion, and improving ankle function, compared with functional treatment ( moderate-quality evidence ).

Compared with electrotherapy Ultrasound is no more effective at improving swelling or pain at 7 days compared with
electrotherapy (moderate-quality evidence).

Functional disability
Compared with placebo Ultrasound is no more effective at improving the ability to walk or bear weight at 7 days
compared with placebo (moderate-quality evidence).

Compared with electrotherapy Ultrasound may be no more effective at improving walking ability at 7 days compared
with electrotherapy ( low-quality evidence ).

Recovery time
Compared with immobilisation Ultrasound may be no more effective at improving recovery times at 7 days compared
with immobilisation, but may be more effective at 14 days (low-quality evidence).

For GRADE evaluation of interventions for ankle sprains, see table, p 13 .

Benefits: Ultrasound versus placebo:

We found one systematic review (see comment below) which compared ultrasound versus sham
[32]
ultrasound treatment. It found no significant difference in general improvement of symptoms
between ultrasound and sham ultrasound at 7 days (3 RCTs; 341 people; 121/169 [72%] with ul-
trasound v 116/172 [68%] with sham ultrasound; RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.17). It also found no
significant difference in functional disability (the ability to walk or bear weight) between ultrasound
and sham ultrasound at 7 days (2 RCTs; 187 people; 69/95 [73%] with ultrasound v 61/92 [66%]
[32]
with sham ultrasound; RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.30).

Ultrasound versus immobilisation:

We found one systematic review (search date 2004, see comment below), which identified one
[32]
RCT that compared ultrasound versus immobilisation over 2 weeks' follow-up. It found no
significant difference in the proportion of people who recovered with ultrasound compared with
immobilisation after 7 days (80 people; 46% with ultrasound v 27% with immobilisation; ARR +19%,
95% CI –2% to +40%). However, after 14 days, it found a significant difference in the proportion
of people who recovered with ultrasound compared with immobilisation (86% with ultrasound v
[32]
59% with immobilisation; ARR 27%, 95% CI 8% to 46%).

Ultrasound versus electrotherapy:

We found one systematic review (see comment below) comparing ultrasound versus other treatment
[32]
modalities. The RCT identified by the review compared ultrasound versus electrotherapy or
sham ultrasound. It found no significant difference between ultrasound and electrotherapy in the
proportion of people with swelling, ability to walk, or who were free of pain at 7 days (search date
2004; 60 people; AR for less than 0.5 cm swelling: 13/20 [65%] with ultrasound v 17/20 [85%] with
electrotherapy; ARR –20%, 95% CI –46% to +6%; AR for ability to walk: 9/20 [45%] with ultrasound
v 14/20 [70%] with electrotherapy; ARR –25%, 95% CI –55% to +5%; AR for freedom from pain:
15/20 [75%] with ultrasound v 18/20 [90%] with electrotherapy; ARR –15%, 95% CI –38% to +8%).
[32]

[33]
Harms: One RCT included in the review RCT found no adverse effects with ultrasound.

Comment: In the review, the quality of four of the included RCTs was described as “modest”, and one as
[32]
“good”. The review reported RCTs in which one or more of pain, swelling, and functional dis-
ability because of an acute ankle sprain were present, and in which at least one group was treated
with active ultrasound treatment. All the RCTs included follow-up of less than 4 weeks.

OPTION COLD TREATMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Symptom relief
Compared with placebo Cold treatment may be no more effective at relieving symptoms of ankle sprain compared
with placebo ( very low-quality evidence ).

© BMJ Publishing Group Ltd 2007. All rights reserved. ............................................................ 8

 Musculoskeletal disorders
Ankle sprain
Compared with other treatments Cold treatment may be more effective at reducing oedema at 3–5 days after an
ankle injury compared with heat or a contrast bath (very low-quality evidence).

For GRADE evaluation of interventions for ankle sprains, see table, p 13 .

Benefits: Cold treatment versus placebo:

We found one systematic review (search date 1994), which identified one RCT comparing
[34]
cryotherapy versus placebo (simulated treatment). The RCT found no significant difference
[35]
between treatments (143 people; P value reported as not significant).

Cold treatment versus different treatments:

[34]
We found one systematic review (search date 1994; 1 RCT; 30 people). The RCT found signif-
icantly less oedema with a cold pack compared with heat or a contrast bath (see comment below)
[36]
at 3–5 days after injury (P < 0.05).

Harms: None of the RCTs addressed harms from cold pack placement.
[34]
Comment: The systematic review was narrative in character, and no data were pooled. The systematic
review did not report the grades of injuries. In the RCT identified by the systematic review that
compared cold compared with heat or a contrast bath, the injured ankle in the contrast bath group
was submerged in warm water for 3 minutes, and then in cold water for 1 minute. This was continued
until the ankle had been given five heat and four cold treatments, beginning and ending with heat.
[36]

OPTION DIATHERMY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Symptom relief
Compared with placebo Diathermy may be no more effective than placebo at relieving symptoms of ankle sprains
such as oedema and pain, or at improving range of movements ( very low-quality evidence ).

Functional disability
Compared with placebo High-frequency electromagnetic pulsing is more effective at improving walking ability compared
with placebo or low frequency pulsing ( high-quality evidence ).

For GRADE evaluation of interventions for ankle sprains, see table, p 13 .

Benefits: Diathermy versus placebo:

[34]
We found one systematic review (search date 1994, 5 RCTs). The review included a range of
severity of ankle sprains, but excluded the most severe injuries (avulsion and osteochondral frac-
tures). The first RCT identified by the review compared two forms of pulsating short-wave treatment
[37]
versus placebo. The RCT found that high frequency electromagnetic pulsing improved walking
ability significantly more quickly than placebo (300 people with time from injury to treatment of no
more than 4 days; P < 0.01). It found no significant difference in walking ability between low-fre-
quency electromagnetic pulsing and placebo. Low-frequency pulsing significantly reduced swelling
compared with placebo, while there was no significant difference between the high-frequency group
and placebo in reduction in circumference of ankle (4.5 mm with high frequency v 5.0 mm with low
frequency v 2.6 mm with placebo; P < 0.01 for low frequency v placebo). The second RCT found
that pulsating short-wave diathermy significantly reduced oedema compared with placebo (50
[38]
people; P < 0.01). The third RCT found no significant difference between treatments for pain,
oedema, or range of motion compared with placebo at 15 days (73 people; results presented
[39]
graphically; pain scores P > 0.35; oedema P > 0.35; range of motion P = 0.35). The fourth RCT
found no significant difference between treatments in pain, elevation, number of analgesics a day,
or time to weight bearing compared with placebo (37 people; pain scale 0 = no pain to 10 = worst
pain, mean daily pain score: 2.37 with diathermy v 2.34 with placebo; mean elevation/day: 1.87
hours with diathermy v 1.77 hours with placebo; mean number of analgesics/day: 0.44 with diathermy
v 0.29 with placebo; mean time to weight bearing: 3.78 days with diathermy v 2.88 days with
[40]
placebo; all comparisons reported as non-significant; P values and CIs not reported). The fifth
RCT found no significant differences between treatments for pain, oedema, or range of motion
compared with placebo (30 people; pain scale 0 = no pain to 10 = worst pain, change in pain score:
–3.70 with ice plus high-frequency high-voltage pulsed stimulation [HVPS] v –3.65 with ice plus
low-frequency HVPS v –2.50 with ice alone; significance not reported; change in active ankle dor-
siflexion range of movement: 8° with ice plus high frequency HVPS v 10° with ice plus low frequency
HVPS v 7° with ice alone; reported as non-significant; change in foot and ankle volume displacement:
–35 mm with ice plus high-frequency HVPS v –38 mm with ice plus low-frequency HVPS v –32 mm
[41]
with ice alone; reported as non-significant). The grades of injuries were not clearly described
in these RCTs, and results were not pooled.

© BMJ Publishing Group Ltd 2007. All rights reserved. ............................................................ 9

 Musculoskeletal disorders
Ankle sprain
Harms: No harms were reported.

Comment: None.

OPTION HOMEOPATHIC OINTMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Treatment success
Compared with placebo Homeopathic ointments may be more effective at achieving overall treatment success
compared with placebo ( very low-quality evidence ).

For GRADE evaluation of interventions for ankle sprains, see table, p 13 .

Benefits: Homeopathic ointment versus placebo:

[42] [43]
We found one systematic review (search date 1998), which included one RCT. The RCT
found that people treated with a homeopathic ointment had a significantly better outcome based
on a “composite criteria of treatment success” compared with people treated with placebo (69
[42]
people with acute ankle sprains; P = 0.028; no further data reported). The number of people
initially randomised in the RCT and losses to follow-up were not reported.
[42]
Harms: Harms were not addressed in the review.

Comment: None.

OPTION PHYSIOTHERAPY (PHYSICAL THERAPY). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . New

Functional disability
Physiotherapy plus proprioceptive training compared with physiotherapy alone Physiotherapy plus proprioceptive
training (star excursion balance training) may be more effective at improving single-leg stance times at 4 weeks
compared with physiotherapy alone ( low-quality evidence ).

Recurrence of ankle injuries

Physiotherapy plus proprioceptive training compared with physiotherapy alone Physiotherapy plus proprioceptive
training (star excursion balance training) may be no more effective at reducing recurrence of ankle strain at 3 months
compared with physiotherapy alone ( very low-quality evidence ).

For GRADE evaluation of interventions for ankle sprains, see table, p 13 .

Benefits: Physiotherapy (physical therapy) plus proprioceptive training versus physiotherapy (phys-
ical therapy) alone:
We found one small RCT comparing star excursion balance training plus standard physiotherapy
[44]
versus standard physiotherapy alone. Standard physiotherapy included superficial heat, ultra-
[44]
sound, range of motion exercise, and strengthening and stretching exercises. The star excursion
balance test is composed of closed kinetic controlled motion, and the ability to balance on one leg;
this was modified in the RCT into a proprioceptive and balance training programme. People balanced
on the sprained ankle while using the other foot to reach as far as it could in eight other directions
under direct supervision. Of 40 males with acute grade II ankle sprains, 32/40 (80%) completed
the programme. The RCT found that star excursion balance training plus physiotherapy (physical
therapy) significantly improved mean single-leg stance times compared with physiotherapy alone
at 4 weeks (eyes closed: 39.9 seconds with balance training plus physiotherapy v 18 seconds with
standard physiotherapy alone; P = 0.002). After 3 months' follow-up, 1/15 (7%) of the training group
and 2/17 (12%) of the control group had recurrent sprains (reported as no significant difference, P
[44]
value not provided). The RCT did not report on other outcomes.
[44]
Harms: The RCT did not report on harms.

Comment: The method of randomisation in the RCT was not specifically defined; it noted that "simple random
[44]
sampling" was used. We have included RCTs on general physiotherapy in this option; we have
not included other specific joint manipulations (e.g. chiropractic) in this option.

GLOSSARY
Anatomic reconstruction Surgical reconstruction of lateral ankle ligament complex through suturing of the ligaments.
Crus varum Varus of the lower leg (O-leg).
Diathermy Warming body tissues using electromagnetic radiation, electric current, or ultrasonic waves for the reduction
of inflammatory response, oedema, and pain.
Dysaesthesia Decreased sensitivity of the skin for stimuli.

© BMJ Publishing Group Ltd 2007. All rights reserved. ........................................................... 10

 Musculoskeletal disorders
Ankle sprain
Functional treatment Involves dorsal and plantar flexion exercises of the ankle joint. The main differences between
functional treatment strategies are the types of external device applied for treatment. The supports can be divided
according to rigidity into elastic bandage, tape, lace-up ankle support, and semirigid ankle support. Functional
treatment may involve strapping, bracing, use of an orthosis, tubigrips, bandages, elastic bandages, and the use of
special shoes. Propriocepsis training (to enhance joint stability) may also be involved in this regimen.
Immobilisation Limiting the mobility of a joint complex to zero degrees with the use of a plaster cast or soft cast,
thus fully immobilising the ankle joint.
Mortise separation adjustment An adjustment technique involving special manual manipulation of the foot and
ankle.[13]
Pes cavo-varus Severe high arched, varus foot.
Tenodesis Surgical reconstruction of lateral ankle ligament complex using tendon graft.
High-quality evidence Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect
Low-quality evidence Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate
of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Moderate-quality evidence Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate
of effect and may change the estimate.
Very low-quality evidence Any estimate of effect is very uncertain.

SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES
Physiotherapy (physical therapy) New option added to the review. Physiotherapy (physical therapy) categorised
as Unknown effectiveness.
[18] [19]
Functional treatment (early mobilisation with use of an external support) Two RCTs added; benefits
and harms data enhanced, categorisation unchanged (Beneficial).
Cold treatment Existing evidence reevaluated; categorisation changed from Unlikely to be beneficial to Unknown
effectiveness.

REFERENCES
1. Bernett P, Schirmann A. Acute sporting injuries of the ankle joint. Unfallheilkunde organisations (Medical Departments of the Dutch Defence Forces and the Royal
1979;82:155–160. [In German] [PubMed] Dutch Football Association) and researchers in the field.
2. Lassiter TE, Malone TR, Garret WE. Injuries to the lateral ligaments of the ankle. 16. Johannes EJ, Sukul DM, Spruit PJ, et al. Controlled trial of a semi-rigid bandage
Orthop Clin North Am 1989;20:629–640. [PubMed] (“Scotchrap”) in patients with ankle ligament lesions. Curr Med Res Opin
3. Marti RK. Bagatelletsels van de voet. 56–61. 1982. Capita selecta, Reuma 1993;13:154–162. [PubMed]
Wereldwijd. 17. Viljakka T, Rokkanen P. The treatment of ankle sprain by bandaging and antiphlo-
4. Van Dijk CN, Bossuyt PM, Marti RK. Medial ankle pain after lateral ligament gistic drugs. Ann Chir Gynaecol 1983;72:66–70. [PubMed]
rupture. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1996;78:562–567. [PubMed] 18. Karlsson J, Eriksson BI, Sward L, et al. Early functional treatment for acute liga-
5. Watson-Jones R. Fractures and joint injuries. London: Churchill Livingstone, ment injuries of the ankle joint. Scand J Med Sci Sports 1996;6:341–345.
1976. 19. Beynnon BD, Renstrom PA, Haugh L, et al. A prospective, randomized clinical
6. Kerkhoffs GMMJ, Handoll HHG, de Bie R, et al. Surgical versus conservative investigation of the treatment of first-time ankle sprains. Am J Sports Med
treatment for acute injuries of the lateral ligament complex of the ankle in adults. 2006;34:1401–1412.
In: The Cochrane Library. 2007, Issue 1. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, 20. Zeegers AVCM. Supination injury of the ankle joint [thesis]. Utrecht: University
Ltd. Search date 2001; primary sources Cochrane Musculoskeletal Injuries Group of Utrecht, The Netherlands, 1995.
specialised register, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Medline, Embase, 21. Biegler M, Lang A, Ritter J. Comparative study on the effectiveness of early
Biosis, Current Contents, hand searches of reference lists of articles, and personal functional treatment using special shoes following surgery of ruptures of fibular
contact with organisations and researchers in the field. ligaments. Unfallchirurg 1985;88:113–117. [In German] [PubMed]
7. Katcherian DA. Treatment of Freiberg's disease. Orthop Clin North Am 22. Sommer HM, Schreiber H. Early functional conservative therapy of fresh fibular
1994;25:69–81. [PubMed] capsular ligament rupture from the socioeconomic viewpoint. Sportverletz
8. Kerkhoffs GMMJ, Rowe BH, Assendelft WJJ, et al. Immobilisation and functional Sportschaden 1993;7:40–46. [In German] [PubMed]
treatment for acute lateral ankle ligament injuries in adults. In: The Cochrane Li- 23. Zwipp H, Hoffmann R, Thermann H, et al. Rupture of the ankle ligaments. Int
brary. 2007, Issue 1. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Search date 2001; Orthop 1991;15:245–249. [PubMed]
primary sources Cochrane Musculoskeletal Injuries Group specialised register,
24. Evans GA, Hardcastle P, Frenyo AD. Acute rupture of the lateral ligament of the
Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Medline, Embase, hand searches of refer-
ankle. To suture or not to suture? J Bone Joint Surg Br 1984;66:209–212.
ence lists of articles, and personal contact with organisations (Medical Depart-
[PubMed]
ments of the Dutch Defence Forces and the Royal Dutch Football Association)
and researchers in the field. 25. Delfosse P, Lafontaine D, Hardy D, et al. Rupture of the ankle ligaments: to repair
or not to repair? Preliminary results of a randomized study [abstract]. 6th Congress
9. Ardevol J, Bolibar I, Belda V, et al. Treatment of complete rupture of the lateral
of the European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery and Arthroscopy
ligaments of the ankle: a randomized clinical trial comparing cast immobilization
1994;S66.
with functional treatment. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2002;10:371–377.
[PubMed] 26. Povacz P, Salzburg F, Unger SF, et al. A randomized, prospective study of oper-
ative and non-operative treatment of injuries of the fibular collateral ligaments of
10. Verhagen AP, de Vet HC, de Bie RA, et al. The Delphi list: a criteria list for
the ankle. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1998;80:345–351. [PubMed]
quality assessment of randomized clinical trials for conducting systematic reviews
developed by Delphi consensus. J Clin Epidemiol 1998; 51:1235–1241. 27. Prins JG. Diagnosis and treatment of injury to the lateral ligament of the ankle:
a comparative clinical study. Acta Chir Scand Suppl 1978;486:3–149. [PubMed]
11. Korkala O, Rusanen M, Jokipii P, et al. A prospective study of the treatment of
severe tears of the lateral ligament of the ankle. Int Orthop 1987;11:13–17. 28. Brostrom L. Sprained ankles V. Treatment and prognosis in recent ligament
[PubMed] ruptures. Acta Chir Scand 1966;132:537–550. [PubMed]
12. Pijnenburg AC, Van Dijk CN, Bossuyt PM, et al. Treatment of ruptures of the 29. Niedermann A, Andersen A, Bryde Andersen S, et al. Rupture of the lateral liga-
lateral ankle ligaments: a meta-analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2000;82:761–773. ments of the ankle: operation or plaster cast? Acta Orthop Scand
Search date 1998; primary sources Cochrane, Medline, Embase, hand searches 1981;52:579–587. [PubMed]
of references from the published reviews, and personal contact with authors. 30. Klein J, Schreckenberger C, Roddecker K, et al. Operative or conservative
[PubMed] treatment of recent rupture of the fibular ligament in the ankle. A randomized
13. Pellow JE, Brantingham JW. The efficacy of adjusting the ankle in the treatment clinical trial. Unfallchirurg 1988;91:154–160. [In German] [PubMed]
of subacute and chronic grade I and grade II ankle inversion sprains. J Manipu- 31. Van den Hoogenband CR, Van Moppes FI. Diagnostic and therapeutic aspects
lative Physiol Ther 2001;24:17–24. [PubMed] of inversion trauma of the ankle joint [thesis]. Maastricht: University of Maastricht,
14. Pijnenburg ACM, Bogaard K, Krips R, et al. Operative and functional treatment 1982.
of rupture of the lateral ligament of the ankle. A randomised, prospective trial. J 32. Van der Windt DAWM, Van der Heijden GJMG, Van den Berg SGM, et al. Ther-
Bone Joint Surg Br 2003;85:525–530. [PubMed] apeutic ultrasound for acute ankle sprains. In: The Cochrane Library. 2007, Issue
15. Kerkhoffs GMMJ, Struijs PAA, Marti RK, et al. Different functional treatment 1. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Search date 2004; primary sources
strategies for acute lateral ankle ligament injuries in adults. In: The Cochrane Cochrane Musculoskeletal Injuries Group specialised register, Cochrane Con-
Library. 2007, Issue 1. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Search date trolled Trials Register, Cochrane Rehabilitation and Related Therapies Field
2001; primary sources Cochrane Musculoskeletal Injuries Group specialised database, Medline, Embase, Cinahl, Pedro — Physiotherapy Evidence Database,
register, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Medline, Embase, Biosis, Current hand searches of reference lists of articles, and personal contact with colleagues.
Contents, hand searches of reference lists of articles, and personal contact with

© BMJ Publishing Group Ltd 2007. All rights reserved. ........................................................... 11

 Musculoskeletal disorders
Ankle sprain
33. Nyanzi CS, Langridge J, Heyworth JR, et al. Randomized controlled study of ul- 40. McGill SN. The effects of pulsed shortwave therapy on lateral ligament sprain of
trasound therapy in the management of acute lateral ligament sprains of the ankle the ankle. NZ J Physiother 1988;16:21–24.
joint. Clin Rehabil 1999;13:16–22. [PubMed] 41. Michlovitz S, Smith W, Watkins M. Ice and high voltage pulsed stimulation in
34. Ogilvie-Harris DJ, Gilbart M. Treatment modalities for soft tissue injuries of the treatment of acute lateral ankle sprains. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther
ankle: a critical review. Clin J Sport Med 1995;5:175–186. Search date 1994; 1988;9:301–304.
primary sources Medline and Excerpta Medica. [PubMed] 42. Cucherat M, Haugh MC, Gooch M, et al. Evidence of clinical efficacy of home-
35. Sloan JP, Hain R, Pownall R. Clinical benefits of early cold therapy in accident opathy: a meta-analysis of clinical trials. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2000;56:27–33.
and emergency following ankle sprain. Arch Emerg Med 1989;6:1–6. [PubMed] Search date 1998; primary sources Medline; Embase; Biosis; Psychinfo; Cinahl;
36. Cote DJ, Prentice WEJ, Hooker DN, et al. Comparison of three treatment proce- British Library Stock Alert Service; Sigle; Amed; hand searches of homeopathy
dures for minimizing ankle sprain swelling. Physical Ther 1988;68:1072–1076. journals, conference abstracts, references provided by colleagues, and reference
lists of selected papers; and personal contact with pharmaceutical companies.
37. Pasila M, Visuri T, Sundholm A. Pulsating shortwave diathermy: value in treatment
[PubMed]
of recent ankle and foot sprains. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1978;59:383–386.
[PubMed] 43. Zell R, Connert WD, Mau J, et al. Treatment of acute sprains of the ankle joint.
Double-blind study assessing the effectiveness of a homeopathic ointment
38. Pennington GM, Danley DL, Sumko MH, et al. Pulsed, non-thermal, high-frequen-
preparation. Fortschr Med 1988;106:96–100. [In German] [PubMed]
cy electromagnetic energy (DIAPULSE) in the treatment of grade I and grade II
ankle sprains. Mil Med 1993;158:101–104. [PubMed] 44. Chaiwanichsiri D, Lorprayoon E, Noomanoch L, et al. Star excursion balance
training: effects on ankle functional stability after ankle sprain. J Med Assoc Thai
39. Barker AT, Barlow PS, Porter J, et al. A double-blind clinical trial of low power
2005;88(Suppl 4):90–94.
pulsed shortwave therapy in the treatment of a soft tissue injury. Physiotherapy
1985;71:500–504.

Peter AA Struijs
Resident surgery
Ferik Hendrikplontsoen 74-2
Amsterdam
Netherlands

Gino MMJ Kerkhoffs

Academic Medical Center
Amsterdam
The Netherlands

Competing interests: PS and GK declare that they are the authors of some studies referenced in this review.

© BMJ Publishing Group Ltd 2007. All rights reserved. ........................................................... 12

 Musculoskeletal disorders
Ankle sprain
TABLE GRADE evaluation of interventions for ankle sprains

Important Pain, swelling, joint stability, return to work or sports, quality of life, adverse effects
outcomes
Number of Outcome Comparison Type Qual- Con- Di- Ef- GRADE Comment
studies of ity sis- rect- fect
(partici- evi- ten- ness size
pants) dence cy
[8]
4 (381) Symptom re- Immobilisation v 4 0 –1 –1 0 Low Consistency point deducted for different
[10]
lief functional treatment results at different endpoints. Directness
point deducted for restricted population
in one study
[8]
8 (754) Return to Immobilisation v 4 0 –1 0 0 Moder- Consistency point deducted for different
[10]
work functional treatment ate results at different endpoints
[8]
9 (676) Return to Immobilisation v 4 0 –1 –1 0 Low Consistency point deducted for different
[9]
sports functional treatment results at different endpoints. Directness
point deducted for restricted population
in one study
[8]
2 (227) Joint stability Immobilisation v 4 0 –1 –1 0 Low Consistency point deducted for different
[10] [9]
functional treatment results at different endpoints. Directness
point deducted for restricted population
in one study
[6]
3 (267) Return to Immobilisation v 4 –2 0 0 +1 Moder- Quality points deducted for methodolog-
sports surgery ate ical flaws and insufficient evidence to
compare effects of treatments. Effect
size point added for relative risk less
than 0.5
14 Joint stability Immobilisation v 4 –2 0 0 0 Low Quality points deducted for methodolog-
[6]
(1065) surgery ical flaws and insufficient evidence to
compare effects of treatments
[6]
8 (639) Recurrence Immobilisation v 4 –2 0 0 0 Low Quality points deducted for methodolog-
of ankle in- surgery ical flaws and insufficient evidence to
juries compare effects of treatments
17 Symptom re- Immobilisation v 4 –2 0 0 0 Low Quality points deducted for methodolog-
[7]
(1377) lief surgery ical flaws and insufficient evidence to
compare effects of treatments
[6]
1 (36) Symptom re- Semi-rigid cast v 4 –2 0 0 0 Low Quality points deducted for methodolog-
lief rigid cast ical flaws and sparse data
[6]
1 (36) Time taken to Semirigid cast v 4 –1 0 0 0 Moder- Quality point deducted for sparse data
return to work rigid cast ate
[12]
3 (214) Joint stability Functional treat- 4 0 0 0 0 High
ment v minimal
treatment
[13]
1 (30) Symptom re- Functional treat- 4 –2 0 0 +1 Moder- Quality points deducted for sparse data
lief ment v ultrasound ate and incomplete reporting of results. Ef-
fect size point added for relative risk
less than 0.5
[6]
2 (216) Return to Functional treat- 4 –2 0 0 0 Low Quality points deducted for methodolog-
sports ment v surgery ical flaws and uncertainty about treat-
ment effects
[6]
5 (421) Recurrence Functional treat- 4 –2 –1 0 0 Very Quality points deducted for methodolog-
ment v surgery low ical flaws and uncertainty about treat-
ment effects. Consistency point deduct-
ed for different results at different end-
points
[6]
10 (882) Symptom re- Functional treat- 4 –2 –1 0 0 Very Quality points deducted for methodolog-
lief ment v surgery low ical flaws and uncertainty about treat-
ment effects. Consistency point deduct-
ed for different results at different end-
points
[6]
9 (686) Joint stability Functional treat- 4 –2 –1 0 0 Very Quality points deducted for methodolog-
ment v surgery low ical flaws and uncertainty about treat-
ment effects. Consistency point deduct-
ed for different results at different end-
points
[15]
3 (360) Symptom re- Different functional 4 –1 –1 –1 0 Very Quality point deducted for inconsistent
[16] [17]
lief treatments v each low follow-up times. Consistency point de-
other ducted for different results at different
endpoints. Directness point deducted
for multiple interventions in comparison

© BMJ Publishing Group Ltd 2007. All rights reserved. ........................................................... 13

 Musculoskeletal disorders
Ankle sprain
Important Pain, swelling, joint stability, return to work or sports, quality of life, adverse effects
outcomes
Number of Outcome Comparison Type Qual- Con- Di- Ef- GRADE Comment
studies of ity sis- rect- fect
(partici- evi- ten- ness size
pants) dence cy
[15]
1 (124) Joint stability Semirigid ankle 4 –2 –1 –1 +1 Very Quality point deducted for inconsistent
support v elastic low follow-up times and sparse data. Con-
bandage sistency point deducted for different re-
sults at different endpoints. Directness
point deducted for multiple interventions
in comparison. Effect size point added
for relative risk greater than 5
[19]
1(86) Return to Early functional 4 –2 0 –1 0 Very Quality points deducted for sparse data
work treatments v con- low and incomplete reporting of results. Di-
ventional treatment rectness point deducted for restricted
range of injuries included
[15]
2 (157) Return to Semirigid ankle 4 –2 –1 –1 0 Very Quality points deducted for sparse data,
work support v elastic low incomplete reporting of results, and in-
bandage consistent follow-up times. Consistency
point deducted for different results at
different endpoints. Directness point
deducted for multiple interventions in
comparison
[19]
1(86 Return to Early functional 4 –1 0 –2 0 Very Quality points deducted for inconsistent
sports treatments v con- low follow-up times. Directness point deduct-
ventional treatment ed for multiple interventions in compari-
son and differences in grades of injuries
[15]
1 (84) Return to Semirigid ankle 4 –2 –1 –1 0 Very Quality points deducted for sparse data,
sports support v elastic low incomplete reporting of results, and in-
bandage consistent follow-up times. Consistency
point deducted for different results at
different endpoints. Directness point
deducted for multiple interventions in
comparison
[19]
1(86) Recurrence Early functional 4 –1 0 –2 0 Very Quality points deducted for inconsistent
of ankle in- treatments v con- low follow-up times. Directness point deduct-
juries ventional treatment ed for multiple interventions in compari-
son and differences in grades of injuries
[16]
2 (202) Recurrence Different functional 4 –1 0 –1 0 Low Quality points deducted for incomplete
[19]
of ankle in- treatments v each reporting of results. Directness point
juries other deducted for inclusion of differences in
grades of injuries
[32]
3 (341) Symptom re- Ultrasound v place- 4 0 0 0 0 High
lief bo
[32]
2 (187) Functional Ultrasound v place- 4 –1 0 0 0 Moder- Quality point deducted for sparse data
disability bo ate
[32]
1 (80) Recovery Ultrasound v immo- 4 –1 –1 0 0 Low Quality points deducted for sparse data.
times bilisation Consistency point deducted for different
results at different endpoints
[32]
1 (60) Symptom re- Ultrasound v elec- 4 –1 0 0 0 Moder- Quality point deducted for sparse data
lief trotherapy ate
[32]
1 (60) Functional Ultrasound v elec- 4 –1 0 0 0 Moder- Quality point deducted for sparse data
disability trotherapy ate
[35]
1 (143) Symptom re- Cold treatment v 4 –2 0 –1 0 Very Quality points deducted for sparse data
lief placebo low and incomplete reporting of results. Di-
rectness point deducted for uncertainty
of grade of injuries
[36]
1 (30) Symptom re- Cold treatment v 4 –2 0 –1 0 Very Quality points deducted for sparse data
lief other treatments low and incomplete reporting of results. Di-
rectness point deducted for uncertainty
of grade of injuries
[37]
1 (300) Functional Diathermy v place- 4 0 +1 0 0 High Consistency point added for dose re-
disability bo sponse
[37]
5 (490) Symptom re- Diathermy v place- 4 –1 –1 –2 0 Very Quality points deducted for incomplete
[38] [39]
lief bo low reporting of results. Consistency point
[40] [41]
deducted for conflicting results. Direct-
ness point deducted for uncertainty of
grade of injury and inclusion of multiple
interventions and outcomes

© BMJ Publishing Group Ltd 2007. All rights reserved. ........................................................... 14

 Musculoskeletal disorders
Ankle sprain
Important Pain, swelling, joint stability, return to work or sports, quality of life, adverse effects
outcomes
Number of Outcome Comparison Type Qual- Con- Di- Ef- GRADE Comment
studies of ity sis- rect- fect
(partici- evi- ten- ness size
pants) dence cy
[42]
1 (69) Composite Homoeopathic oint- 4 –3 0 –1 0 Very Quality points deducted for incomplete
treatment ment v placebo low reporting of results, sparse data, uncer-
success tainties about follow-up, and randomisa-
tion. Directness point deducted for
composite outcome
[44]
1 (32) Functional Physiotherapy plus 4 –2 0 0 0 Low Quality points deducted for sparse data
disability propioceptive train- and uncertainty about randomisation
ing v physiotherapy
[44]
1 (32) Recurrence Physiotherapy plus 4 –3 0 0 0 Very Quality points deducted for incomplete
of ankle in- propioceptive train- low reporting of results, sparse data, and
juries ing v physiotherapy uncertainty about randomisation
Type of evidence: 4 = RCT; 2 = Observational; 1 = Non-analytical/expert opinion.
Consistency: similarity of results across studies.
Directness: generalisability of population or outcomes.
Effect size: based on relative risk or odds ratio.

Disclaimer

The information contained in this publication is intended for medical professionals. Categories presented in Clinical Evidence indicate a
judgement about the strength of the evidence available to our contributors prior to publication and the relevant importance of benefit and
harms. We rely on our contributors to confirm the accuracy of the information presented and to adhere to describe accepted practices.
Readers should be aware that professionals in the field may have different opinions. Because of this and regular advances in medical research
we strongly recommend that readers' independently verify specified treatments and drugs including manufacturers' guidance. Also, the
categories do not indicate whether a particular treatment is generally appropriate or whether it is suitable for a particular individual. Ultimately
it is the readers' responsibility to make their own professional judgements, so to appropriately advise and treat their patients.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, BMJ Publishing Group Limited and its editors are not responsible for any losses, injury or damage
caused to any person or property (including under contract, by negligence, products liability or otherwise) whether they be direct or indirect,
special, incidental or consequential, resulting from the application of the information in this publication.

© BMJ Publishing Group Ltd 2007. All rights reserved. ........................................................... 15