Abstract
This editorial critically evaluated the recent study by AlMousa et al, which examined the impact of the Arabic version of the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons Foot and Ankle Outcomes Questionnaire (AAOS-FAOQ) on postoperative quality of life and recovery in Arabic-speaking patients with traumatic foot and ankle injuries. In the context of systemic linguistic exclusion in orthopedic research-where English-language journals dominated most publications and non-English-speaking populations faced dual barriers of trial underrepresentation and semantic distortions (e.g., mistranslations of terms like "joint instability" in Arabic)-AlMousa et al's work highlighted the transformative potential of culturally adapted methodologies. Their rigorous four-stage adaptation framework validated the Arabic AAOS-FAOQ as a reliable tool, enhancing ecological validity and reducing bias in patient-reported outcomes. However, limitations such as regional specificity (Gulf-centric sampling) and short follow-up periods (4 months) underscored broader challenges in non-English research: Redundant studies, prolonged hospital stays for limited English proficiency patients, and underrepresentation of certain ethnic groups in trials. To dismantle linguistic hegemony, we proposed semantic reconstruction (e.g., integrating culturally specific indicators like "prayer posture"), dialect-aware neural translation, and World Health Organization led terminology standardization. In line with these proposed solutions, AlMousa et al's study exemplified how language-sensitive adaptations could bridge equity gaps, while future efforts would need to balance cultural specificity with cross-study comparability through AI-driven multilingual databases and policy mandates for cultural adaptation roadmaps.