Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1757-1146-7-33) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
NAG and GHIMW designed and wrote the research proposal. NAG collected and prepared the data. Statistical analysis was executed by DMCJ and NAG. Data interpretation was done by NAG, DMCJ and APS. Writing of the scientific paper was performed by DMCJ, APS and NAG. JH, GHIMW and LWR read and discussed the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Hallux valgus deformity is a common musculoskeletal foot disorder with a prevalence of 3.5% in adolescents to 35.7% in adults aged over 65 years. Radiographic measurements of hallux valgus angles (HVA) are considered to be the most reproducible and accurate assessment of HVA. However, in European countries, many podiatrists do not have direct access to radiographic facilities. Therefore, alternative measurements are desired. Such measurements are computerised plantar pressure measurement and clinical goniometry. The purpose of this study was to establish the agreement of these techniques and radiographic assessments.
HVA was determined in one hundred and eighty six participants suffering from diabetes. Radiographic measurements of HVA were performed with standardised static weight bearing dorsoplantar foot radiographs.
The clinical goniometry for HVA was measured with a universal goniometer. Computerised plantar pressure measurement for HVA was executed with the EMED SF-4® pressure platform and Novel-Ortho-Geometry software. The intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) and levels of agreement were analysed using Bland & Altman plots.
Comparison of radiographic measurements to clinical goniometry for HVA showed an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.81 (95% confidence interval, 0.76 to 0.86; p<0.001). Radiographic measurement versus computerised plantar pressure measurement showed an ICC of 0.59 (95% confidence interval, 0.49 to 0.68; p<0.001). In addition, clinical goniometry versus computerised plantar pressure measurement showed an ICC of 0.77 (95% confidence interval, 0.70 to 0.82; p<0.001). The systematic difference of the computerised plantar pressure measurement compared with radiographic measurement and clinical goniometry was 7.0 degrees (SD 6.8) and 5.2 degrees (SD 5.0), respectively. The systemic difference of radiographic measurements compared with clinical goniometry was 1.8 degrees (SD 5.0).
The agreement of computerised plantar pressure measurement and clinical goniometry for HVA compared to radiographic measurement of HVA is unsatisfactory. Radiographic measurements of HVA and clinical goniometry for HVA yield better agreement compared to radiographic measurements and computerised plantar pressure measurement. The traditional radiographic measurement techniques are strongly recommended for the assessment of HVA.
Authors’ original file for figure 113047_2013_754_MOESM1_ESM.tif
Authors’ original file for figure 213047_2013_754_MOESM2_ESM.tif
Authors’ original file for figure 313047_2013_754_MOESM3_ESM.tif
Authors’ original file for figure 413047_2013_754_MOESM4_ESM.tif
Authors’ original file for figure 513047_2013_754_MOESM5_ESM.tif
Authors’ original file for figure 613047_2013_754_MOESM6_ESM.tif
Authors’ original file for figure 713047_2013_754_MOESM7_ESM.tif
Authors’ original file for figure 913047_2013_754_MOESM8_ESM.jpeg
Authors’ original file for figure 1013047_2013_754_MOESM9_ESM.jpeg
Authors’ original file for figure 1113047_2013_754_MOESM10_ESM.jpeg
Nix S, Smith M, Vicenzino B: Prevalence of hallux valgus in the general population: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Foot Ankle Res. 2010, 27: 3-21.
Schneider W, Csepan R, Kasparek M, Pinggera O, Knahr K: Intra- and interobserver repeatability of radiographic measurements in hallux surgery: improvement and validation of a method. Acta Orthop Scand. 2002, 73: 670-673. PubMed
Silvino N, Evanski PM, Waugh TR: The Harris and Beath footprinting mat: diagnostic validity and clinical use. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1980, 265-269.
Bryant A, Tinley P, Singer K: Radiographic measurements and plantar pressure distribution in norman, hallux valgus and hallux limitus feet. Foot. 2000, 10: 18-22. CrossRef
Kanatli U, Yetkin H, Cila E: Footprint and radiographic analysis of the feet. J Pediatr Orthop. 2001, 21: 225-228. PubMed
Menz HB, Munteanu SE: Radiographic validation of the Manchester scale for the classification of hallux valgus deformity. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2005, 44: 1061-1066. CrossRef
TE Kilmartin BR, Wallace WW: The x-ray measurement of hallux valgus: an inter- and intra-observer error study. Foot. 1992, 2: 7-11. CrossRef
Kilmartin TE, Bishop A: Hallux abductus measurement: repeatability trials of a clinical measuring instrument. Chiropodist. 1988, 43: 185-187.
Mitchell CL, Fleming JL, Allen R, Glenney C, Sanford GA: Osteotomy-bunionectomy for hallux valgus. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1958, 40-A (1): 41-58. PubMed
Schneider W, Csepan R, Knahr K: Reproducibility of the radiographic metatarsophalangeal angle in hallux surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003, 85-A: 494-499. PubMed
van der Leeden M, Dekker JH, Siemonsma PC, Lek-Westerhof SS, Steultjens MP: Reproducibility of plantar pressure measurements in patients with chronic arthritis: a comparison of one-step, two-step, and three-step protocols and an estimate of the number of measurements required. Foot Ankle Int. 2004, 25: 739-744. PubMed
Graft PM: The EMED system of foot pressure analysis. Clin Podiatr Med Surg. 1993, 10: 445-454.
Bus SA, de Lange A: A comparison of the 1-step, 2-step, and 3-step protocols for obtaining barefoot plantar pressure data in the diabetic neuropathic foot. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2005, 20: 892-899. CrossRef
Cavanagh PR, Ulbrecht JS: Clinical plantar pressure measurment in diabetes: rationale and methodology. Foot. 1994, 4: 123-135. CrossRef
Mathieson I, Upton D, Birchenough A: Comparison of footprint parameters calculated from static and dynamic footprints. Foot. 1999, 9: 145-149. CrossRef
Hayes A, Seitz P: The average pressure distribution of the diabetic foot: can it be used as a clinical diagnostic aid?. Clin Biomech. 1997, 12: 3-4. CrossRef
Kilmartin TE, O’Kane C: Combined rotation scarf and Akin osteotomies for hallux valgus: a patient focussed 9 year follow up of 50 patients. J Foot Ankle Res. 2010, 15: 2- CrossRef
Srivastava S, Chockalingam N, El Fakhri T: Radiographic measurements of hallux angles: a review of current techniques. Foot (Edinb). 2010, 20: 27-31. CrossRef
Pique-Vidal C, Maled-Garcia I, Arabi-Moreno J, Vila J: Radiographic angles in hallux valgus: differences between measurements made manually and with a computerised program. Foot Ankle Int. 2006, 27: 175-180. PubMed
Farber DC, Deorio JK, Steel MW: Goniometric versus computerised angle measurement in assessing hallux valgus. Foot Ankle Int. 2005, 26: 234-238. PubMed
Hughes J, Pratt L, Linge K, Clark P, Klenerman L: Reliability of pressure measurements: the EMED F system. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 1991, 6: 14-18. CrossRef
Taranto J, Taranto MJ, Bryant A, Singer KP: Angle of gait: a comparative reliability study using footprints and the EMED-SF. Foot. 2005, 15: 7-13. CrossRef
Urry SR: Arch indexes from ink footprints and pressure platforms are different. Foot. 2005, 15: 69-73. CrossRef
Kelikian AS: The surgical treatment of hallux valgus using the modified Z-osteotomy. Clin Sports Med. 1988, 7: 61-74. PubMed
- A comparison of hallux valgus angles assessed with computerised plantar pressure measurements, clinical examination and radiography in patients with diabetes
Daniël MC Janssen
Antal P Sanders
Nick A Guldemond
Geert HIM Walenkamp
Lodewijk W van Rhijn
- BioMed Central