Correlation of Radiological and Pedobarographic Evaluations in the Presence of Foot Sole Pain

Abstract

Objective: One of the reasons for foot pain is the changes in the structure of the medial longitudinal arch. Assessment of medial longitudinal arch height is often made with foot radiographs and pedobarographic measurements. The relationship between these methods in the presence of foot sole pain has not been examined yet. This study aims to investigate the relationship among these measurement methods in adults with foot sole pain. Materials and Methods: 60 adults with foot sole pain were included in this study. The talohorizontal, talocalcaneal, talo1.metatarsal, and calcaneal inclination angles were measured in the lateral weight bearing foot radiographs. The arch index was calculated in static, dynamic pedobarographic measurements. The agreement of radiological and pedographic measurements among themselves and with each other was determined. Results: The mean age of 60 participants was 45.32 ±13.64. Agreement among foot classifications of radiologic measurements was poor Gwet’s agreement coefficient =-0.198 with a 95% confidence interval (-0.315,-0.080); percent agreement = 0.167 with a 95% confidence interval (0.099,0.234) and Kappa =-0.047 with a 95% confidence interval (-0.083,-0.01) were found. The agreement between pedobarographic classifications was fair Gwet’s agreement coefficient =0.486 with a 95% confidence interval (0.355,0.617); percent agreement =0.65 with 95% confidence interval (0.563,0.737) and Kappa=0.453 with a 95% confidence interval (0.324,0.583) were found. Among radiological measurements, the calcaneal inclination angle showed the highest coefficients of agreement with pedobarographic measurements. The extent of its agreement was fair. Conclusion: Pedobarography is a simple, reliable, inexpensive, and noninvasive method. The calcaneal inclination angle which is used in radiological imaging can give an idea about the height of the medial longitudinal arch.

Keywords

• Foot pain
• medial longitudinal arch
• pedobarographic arch index
• radiologic measurements

Ayak Taban Ağrısı Varlığında Radyolojik ve Pedobarografik Değerlendirmelerin Korelasyonu

Abstract

Amaç: Ayak ağrısının nedenlerinden biri medial longitudinal arkın yapısındaki değişikliklerdir. Medial longitudinal arkın yüksekliğinin değerlendirilmesi sıklıkla ayak grafileri ve pedobarografik ölçümlerle yapılır. Ayak tabanı ağrısı varlığında bu yöntemlerin ilişkisi henüz incelenmemiştir. Bu çalışmanın amacı ayak taban ağrılı erişkinlerde bu yöntemler arasındaki ilişkiyi araştırmaktır. Gereç ve Yöntem: Bu çalışmaya ayak taban ağrılı 60 yetişkin dahil edildi. Lateral yüklenmede ayak grafilerinde talohorizontal, talocalcaneal, talo1.metatarsal, kalkaneal eğim açıları ölçüldü. Ark indeksi, statik, dinamik pedobarografik ölçümlerde hesaplandı. Radyolojik ve pedografik ölçümlerin kendi aralarında ve birbirleri ile uyumu belirlendi. Bulgular: 60 katılımcının yaş ortalaması 45.32 ±13.64 idi. Radyolojik ölçümlerin ayak sınıflandırmaları arasındaki %95 güven aralığı ile (-0.315,-0.080) Gwet’in uyum katsayısı=-0.198; %95 güven aralığı ile uyum yüzdesi = 0,167 (0,099,0,234) ve %95 güven aralığı ile Kappa=-0,047 (-0,083, -0,01) uyum zayıftı. Pedobarografik sınıflandırmalar arasındaki uyum, %95 güven aralığı ile (0,355,0,617) Gwet’in uyum katsayısı=0,486; %95 güven aralığı ile (0,563,0,737) uyum yüzdesi=0,65 ve %95 güven aralığı ile Kappa=0,453 (0,324,0,583) uyum orta düzeyde idi. Radyolojik ölçümler arasında kalkaneal eğim açısı, pedobarografik ölçümlerle en yüksek uyum katsayılarını sahipti. Kendi içindeki uyum “zayıf” tı. Sonuç: Pedobarografi basit, güvenilir, ucuz ve girişimsel olmayan bir yöntemdir. Radyolojik görüntülemede kullanılan kalkaneal eğim açısı, medial longitudinal arkın yüksekliği hakkında fikir verebilir.

Keywords

• Ayak ağrısı
• medial longitudinal ark
• pedobarografik ark index
• radyolojik ölçümler.

References

1. Gates LS, Arden NK, Hannan MT, Roddy E, Gill TK, Hill CL, Dufour AB, et al. Prevalence of foot pain across an International Consortium of Population‐Based cohorts. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2022 Jan 2];71(5):661-70. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.23829
2. Zuil-Escobar JC, Martinez-Cepa CB, Martin-Urrialde JA, Gomez- Conesa A. Medial longitudinal arch: Accuracy, reliability, and correlation between navicular drop test and footprint parameters. J Manipulative Physiol Ther [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2022 Jan 2];41(8):672-9. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmpt.2018.04.001
3. Vazquez-Zorrilla D, Millan-Alanis JM, Alvarez-Villalobos NA, Elizondo-Omana RE, Guzman-Lopez S, Vilchez-Cavazos JF, Fernandez- Rodarte BA, Quiroga-Garza A et al. Anatomy of foot Compartments: a systematic review. Ann Anat - Anat Anzeiger [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2022 Jan 2];229(May 2020):1-8. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31978573/
4. Morton DJ. The human foot: Its evolutionary development, physiology and functional disorders. New York: Columbia University Press; 1935. 696 p.
5. Agoada D, Kramer PA. Radiographic measurements of the talus and calcaneus in the adult pes planus foot type. Am J Phys Anthropol [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2022 May 21]; 171(4):613-627. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ajpa.
6. Williams DS, McClay IS. Measurements Used to Characterize the Foot and the Medial Longitudinal Arch: Reliability and Validity. Phys Ther [Internet]. 2000 [cited 2022 Jan 2];80(9):864-871. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/ptj/article/80/9/864/2842502?login=true
7. Granado M. Pes cavus. Cinahl Information Systems [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2022 Jan 2];1-13. Available from: https://www.ebsco. com/sites/g/files/nabnos191/files/acquiadam-assets/Rehabilitation-Reference-Center-Clinical-Review-Pes-Cavus.pdf
8. Fernandez-Seguin LM, Diaz Mancha JA, Sanchez Rodriguez R, Escamilla Martinez E, Gomez Martin B, Ramos Ortega J. Comparison of plantar pressures and contact area between normal and cavus foot. Gait Posture [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2022 Jun 1]; 39(2):789-792. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0966636213006528

9. Yeagerman SE, Cross MB, Positano R, Positano R. Evaluation and treatment of symptomatic pes planus. Curr Opin Pediatr [Internet]. 2011[cited 2022 Jan 5];23(1):60-7. Available from: https://doi. org/10.1097/MOP.0b013e32834230b2
10. Sanpera I, Villafranca-Solano S, Munoz-Lopez C, Sanpera-Iglesias J. How to manage pes cavus in children and adolescents? EFORT Open Rev [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2023 Jul 4]; 6(6):510-517. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34267941/
11. Salinas-Torres VM, Salinas-Torres RA, Carranza-Garcia LE, Herrera- Orozco J, Tristan-Rodriguez JL. Prevalence and Clinical Factors Associated With Pes Planus Among Children and Adults: A Population- Based Synthesis and Systematic Review. J Foot Ankle Surg [Internet]. 2023[cited 2023 Jul 4]; 000:1-5. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37286098/
12. Xiong S, Goonetilleke RS, Witana CP, Weerasinghe TW, Lee AU EY. Foot arch characterization. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc [Internet]. 2010 [cited 2022 Jan 2];100(1):14-24. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20093541/
13. Kanatli U, Yetkin H, Bolukbasi S. Evaluation of the transverse metatarsal arch of the foot with gait analysis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg [Internet]. 2003 [cited 2018 May 2];123(4):148-50. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-002-0459-7
14. Carrara C, Caravaggi P, Belvedere C, Leardini A. Radiographic angular measurements of the foot and ankle in weight-bearing: A literature review. Foot Ankle Surg [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2022 Jan 2];26(5):509-17. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. fas.2019.07.008
15. Ludlow JB. Hand-wrist, knee, and foot-ankle dosimetry and image quality measurements of a novel extremity imaging unit providing CBCT and 2D imaging options. Med Phys [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2022 Jan 3];45(11):4955-63. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.13198
16. Schepers T, Van der Stoep A, Van der Avert H, Esther MM, Leishout V, Patka P. Plantar pressure analysis after percutaneous repair of displaced intra-articular calcaneal fractures. Foot Ankle Int [Internet]. 2008 [cited 2022 Jan 3];29(2):128-35. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3113/FAI.2008.0128
17. Hee HT, Lee EH, Lee GS. Gait and pedobarographic patterns of surgically treated clubfeet. J Foot Ankle Surg [Internet]. 2001 [cited 2022 Jan 9];40(5):287-94. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1067-2516(01)80064-8
18. Skopljak A, Muftic M, Sukalo A, Masic I. Pedobarography in Diagnosis and Clinical Application. Acta Inform Medica [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2022 Jan 4]; 22(6):374. Available from: https://www.ncbi. nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4315649/
19. Onodera AN, Sacco ICN, Morioka EH, Souza PS, Sa MR de, Amadio AC. What is the best method for child longitudinal plantar arch assessment and when does arch maturation occur? Foot [Internet]. 2008 [cited 2022 Jan 4]; 18(3):142-149. Available from: https://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0958259208000308
20. Yalcin N. Evaluation of the medial longitudinal arch: a comparison between the dynamic plantar pressure measurement system and radiographic analysis. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc [Internet]. 2010 [cited 2018 May 2];44(3):241-5. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3944/AOTT.2010.2233
21. Subotnick SL. The Biomechanics of Running Implications for the Prevention of Foot Injuries. Sport Med [Internet]. 1985 [cited 2018 May 1];2(2):144-53. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2860714/
22. Saltzman CL, Nawoczenski DA, Talbot KD. Measurement of the medial longitudinal arch. Arch Phys Med Rehabil [Internet]. 1995 [cited 2018 May 2];76(1):45-9. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-9993(95)80041-7
23. Deforth M, Zwicky L, Horn T, Hintermann B. The effect of foot type on the Achilles tendon moment arm and biomechanics. Foot [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2022 Jan 2];38:91-4. Available from: https://doi. org/10.1016/j.foot.2018.10.003
24. Kanatli U, Yetkin H, Cila E. Footprint and radiographic analysis of the feet. J Pediatr Orthop [Internet]. 2001 [cited 2018 May 1];21(2):225-8. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1097/01241398- 200103000-00018
25. Naseer S, Babu R, Panjala A, Arifuddin MS, Manfusa H, Rao EV. Comparison of medial longitudinal arches of the foot by radiographic method in users and nonusers of high-heeled footwear among young women. J Anat Soc India [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2022 Jan 4];70(4):226- 32. Available from: https://doi.org/10.4103/jasi.jasi_202_20
26. Simons GW. A standardized method for the radiographic evaluation of clubfeet. Clin Orthop Relat Res [Internet]. 1978 [cited 2022 Jan 6];135:107-18. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-197809000-00025
27. Vanderwilde R, Staheli LT, Chew DE M V. Measurements on radiographs of the foot in normal infants and children. J Bone Joint Surg Am [Internet]. 1988 [cited 2022 Jan 6 ;70(3):407-15. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3346265/
28. Wadee AN. Influence of wearing high heel on different foot angels in normal female subjects. Med J Cairo Univ [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2022 Jan 13];85(811):1-13.Available from: https://scholar.cu.edu.eg/ sites/default/files/anazih/files/6_nskh_lbhth_lrl.pdf
29. Cavanagh PR, Rodgers MM. The arch index: A useful measure from footprints. J Biomech [Internet]. 1987 [cited 2018 May 1];20(5):547-51. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9290(87)90255-7
30. Gwet KL. Handbook of inter-rater reliability. 4th ed. Gaithersburg, United States of America: Advanced Analytics LLC; 2014. 104 p.
31. Kottner J, Audige L, Brorson S, Donner A, Gajewski BJ, Hrobjartsson, et al. Guidelines for eporting reliability and agreement studies (GRRAS) were proposed. Int J Nurs Stud [Internet]. 2011 [cited 2018 Jun 1];48(6):661-71. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2011.01.016
32. Feinstein AR, Cicchetti D V. High agreement but low Kappa: I. The problems of two paradoxes. J Clin Epidemiol [Internet]. 1990 [cited 2018 Jun 1];43(6):543-9. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/0895- 4356(90)90158-L
33. Conger AJ. Integration and generalization of kappas for multiple raters. Psychol Bull [Internet]. 1980 [cited 2018 Jun 1]; 88(2):322-8. Available from: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1980-29309-001
34. Woei Chyn Chu, Shin Hwa Lee, Chu W, Tzyy-Jiuan Wang, Maw- Chang Lee. The use of arch index to characterize arch height: a digital image processing approach. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng [Internet]. 1995[cited 2018 Jun 5];42(11):1088-1093. Available from: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/469375