The aim of this prospective study was to compare outcomes in patients handled by emergency physician according to OAR versus by an orthopedic resident.

92 consecutive patients with ankle injuries attending our emergency department were divided in two groups. The study group comprised 32 patients who arrived during the morning shift and were examined by an emergency physician according to OAR. Patients discharged without an x-ray were followed in the clinic or by telephone communication. The control group constituted 60 patients who were examined during the evening and night shifts by orthopedic residents unaware of this study.

Objective. Ankle and midfoot injuries are common orthopedic complaints, both in general medicine and orthopedic practice. The percentage of fractures among these injuries is small, however many will undergo x-ray. Ottawa ankle rules (OAR) are clinical guidelines for determining whether to use radiography in such cases. The aim of this prospective study was to compare outcomes in patients handled by emergency physician according to OAR versus by an orthopedic resident. Also, we validated the applicability of OAR in an emergency department in our country.

Methods. 92 consecutive patients with ankle injuries attending our emergency department were divided in two groups. The study group comprised 32 patients who arrived during the morning shift and were examined by an emergency physician according to OAR. Patients discharged without an x-ray were followed in the clinic or by telephone communication. The control group constituted 60 patients who were examined during the evening and night shifts by orthopedic residents unaware of this study.

Inclusion Criteria:

• ankle trauma

Exclusion Criteria:

• unwilling to participate