Investigation the diagnostic criteria used to determine pes planus in postgraduate thesis studies conducted in Turkey

Year 2024, Volume: 11 Issue: 3, 206 - 216, 19.12.2024

Aslı Ören , Banu Ünver , Nilgün Bek

https://doi.org/10.15437/jetr.1423481

Abstract

Purpose: This study was planned to examine the diagnostic criteria used to determine pes planus in postgraduate theses conducted in our country and to discuss the results with the current literature.
Methods: Using the keywords "pes planus, flatfoot, calcaneovalgus, pronation, hindfoot eversion/valgus, low arch, pes planovalgus, in-toeing, foot posture, medial longitudinal arch, navicular height, navicular drop, footprint, pedobarography" in the database of the Council of Higher Education National Thesis Center. 147 postgraduate studies were accessed. 117 studies meeting the inclusion criteria were examined.
Results: The most commonly used methods to determine pes planus were Navicular Drop Test (NDT) (n=40; % 34,18), Foot Posture Index (FPI) (n=37; %31,62) and footprint method (n=15; % 12,82). It was observed that the NDT criterion was frequently taken into consideration as 10 mm and above, and the FPI criterion as 6 and above. It was determined that Staheli Arc Index, Arc Index and Chippaux-Smirak Index were mostly used in the footprint method. The outcome measures in which individuals were most frequently evaluated in theses were related to balance, pedobarography, muscle strength, foot function, and quality of life.
Conclusion: It was observed that there is no consensus regarding the diagnostic criteria used to determine pes planus. In light of the discussed advantages and disadvantages of measurement methods that are considered valid and reliable in the literature, it was evaluated that combining different test results could be a correct approach to minimize the impact of clinical decision making and measurement errors.

Keywords

Pes planus, Foot, Theses

Türkiye’de gerçekleştirilen lisansüstü tez çalışmalarında pes planusu belirlemede kullanılan tanı kriterlerinin incelenmesi

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışma ülkemizde gerçekleştirilen lisansüstü tezlerde pes planusun belirlenmesinde kullanılan tanı kriterlerini incelenmek ve sonuçları güncel literatürle tartışmak amacıyla planlandı.
Yöntem: Yükseköğretim Kurulu Ulusal Tez Merkezi veri tabanında “pes planus, düztaban, kalkaneovalgus, pronasyon, arka ayak eversiyonu/valgusu, düşük ark, pes planovalgus, içe basma, ayak postürü, medial longitudinal ark, naviküler yükseklik, naviküler düşme, ayak izi, pedobarografi” anahtar kelimeleri kullanılarak 147 lisansüstü çalışmaya ulaşıldı. Dahil edilme kriterlerini sağlayan 117 çalışma incelendi.
Bulgular: Pes planusu belirlemek için en sık kullanılan yöntemler Naviküler Düşme Testi (NDT) (n=40; % 34,18), Ayak Postür İndeksi (APİ) (n=37; %31,62) ve ayak izi (n=15; % 12,82) yöntemiydi. NDT kriterinin sıklıkla 10 mm ve üzeri, APİ kriterinin ise çoğunlukla 6 ve üzeri değerlerinin dikkate alındığı görüldü. Ayak izi yönteminde daha çok Staheli Ark İndeksi, Ark İndeksi ve Chippaux-Smirak İndeksi kullanıldığı belirlendi. Tezlerdeki bireylerin en sık değerlendirildiği sonuç ölçütleri denge, pedobarografi, kas kuvveti, ayak fonksiyonu, yaşam kalitesi ile ilgiliydi.
Sonuç: Pes planusun belirlenmesinde kullanılan tanı kriterleri açısından bir fikir birliği bulunmadığı görüldü. Literatürde geçerli ve güvenilir kabul edilen ölçüm yöntemlerin tartışılan avantaj ve dezavantajları ışığında klinik karar vermenin ve ölçüm hatalarının etkisini en aza indirmek için farklı test sonuçlarının birleştirilmesinin doğru bir yaklaşım olabileceği değerlendirildi

Keywords

Pes planus, Ayak, Tezler

Ethical Statement

Bu inceleme kapsamında ‘Etik Kurul Onayı’ gerekmemiştir.

Thanks

Yazar AÖ, Yükseköğretim Kurulu (YÖK) Fizyoterapi ve Rehabilitasyon Anabilim Dalı'nda 100/2000 Doktora Bursiyeridir.

References

• Carrasco AC, Silva MF, Guenka LC, et al. Non-radiographic validity and reliability measures for assessing foot types: a systematic review. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2021;27:839-850.
• Aenumulapalli A, Kulkarni MM, Gandotra AR. Prevalence of flexible flat foot in adults: a cross-sectional study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2017;11:AC17-AC20.
• Squibb M, Sheerin K, Francis P. Measurement of the developing foot in shod and barefoot paediatric populations: a narrative review. Children (Basel). 2022;9:750.
• Scholz T, Zech A, Wegscheider K, et al. Reliability and correlation of static and dynamic foot arch measurement in a healthy pediatric population. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2017;107:419-427.
• Dingeldey E, Oblinger B. Flatfoot in children. Orthopadie (Heidelb). 2024;53:379-390.
• Vinicombe A, Raspovic A, Menz HB. Reliability of navicular displacement measurement as a clinical indicator of foot posture. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2001;91:262-268.
• Allen MK, Glasoe WM. Metrecom measurement of navicular drop in subjects with anterior cruciate ligament injury. J Athl Train. 2000;35:403-406.
• Pita-Fernández S, González-Martín C, Seoane-Pillado T, et al. Validity of footprint analysis to determine flatfoot using clinical diagnosis as the gold standard in a random sample aged 40 years and older. J Epidemiol. 2015;25:148-154.
• Murley GS, Landorf KB, Menz HB, et al. Effect of foot posture, foot orthoses and footwear on lower limb muscle activity during walking and running: a systematic review. Gait & posture. 2009;29:172-187.
• Brody DM. Techniques in the evaluation and treatment of the injured runner. Orthop Clin North Am. 1982;13:541-558.
• Loudon JK, Jenkins W, Loudon KL. The relationship between static posture and ACL injury in female athletes. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1996;24:91-97.
• McPoil TG, Cornwall MW. The relationship between static lower extremity measurements and rearfoot motion during walking. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1996;24:309-314.
• Menz HB. Alternative techniques for the clinical assessment of foot pronation. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 1998;88:119-129.
• Zuil-Escobar JC, Martínez-Cepa CB, Martín-Urrialde JA, et al. Evaluating the medial longitudinal arch of the foot: correlations, reliability, and accuracy in people with a low arch. Phys Ther. 2019;99:364-372.
• Banwell HA, Paris ME, Mackintosh S, et al. Paediatric flexible flat foot: how are we measuring it and are we getting it right? A systematic review. J Foot Ankle Res. 2018;11:21.
• Aquino MRC, Avelar BS, Silva PL, et al. Reliability of Foot Posture Index individual and total scores for adults and older adults. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2018;36:92-95.
• Elftman H. A cinematic study of the distribution of pressure in the human foot. The Anatomical Record. 1934;59:481-491.
• Mathieson I, Upton D, Birchenough A. Comparison of footprint parameters calculated from static and dynamic footprints. The Foot. 1999;9:145-149.
• Cobey JC, Sella E. Standardizing methods of measurement of foot shape by including the effects of subtalar rotation. Foot Ankle. 1981;2:30-36.
• McCrory JL, Young MJ, Boulton AJM, et al. Arch index as a predictor of arch height. The Foot. 1997;7:79-81.
• Vela SA, Lavery LA, Armstrong DG, et al. The effect of increased weight on peak pressures: implications for obesity and diabetic foot pathology. J Foot Ankle Surg. 1998;37:416-420.
• Giacomozzi C, Stebbins JA. Anatomical masking of pressure footprints based on the Oxford Foot Model: validation and clinical relevance. Gait Posture. 2017;53:131-138.
• Sensiba PR, Coffey MJ, Williams NE, et al. Inter-and intraobserver reliability in the radiographic evaluation of adult flatfoot deformity. Foot Ankle Int. 2010;31:141-145.
• Cavanagh PR, Morag E, Boulton A, et al. The relationship of static foot structure to dynamic foot function. J Biomech. 1997;30:243-250.
• Murley GS, Menz HB, Landorf KB. A protocol for classifying normal-and flat-arched foot posture for research studies using clinical and radiographic measurements. J Foot Ankle Res. 2009;2:1-13.
• Dahle LK, Mueller M, Delitto A, et al. Visual assessment of foot type and relationship of foot type to lower extremity injury. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1991;14:70-74.
• Nilsson MK, Friis R, Michaelsen MS, et al. Classification of the height and flexibility of the medial longitudinal arch of the foot. J Foot Ankle Res. 2012;5:1-9.
• Jonson LSR, Gross MT. Intraexaminer reliability, interexaminer reliability, and mean values for nine lower extremity skeletal measures in healthy naval midshipmen. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1997;25:253-263.
• Persiane AS, Negrão DMG, Alves RDP, et al. Subtalar joınt ın neutral and relaxed posıtıons for evaluatıon of medıal longıtudınal arch. Acta Ortop Bras. 2021;29:177-180.
• Smith-Oricchio K, Harris BA. Interrater reliability of subtalar neutral, calcaneal inversion and eversion. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1990;12:10-15.
• Chang HW, Lin CJ, Kuo LC, et al. Three-dimensional measurement of foot arch in preschool children. Biomed Eng Online. 2012;11:76.
• Evans AM, Copper AW, Scharfbillig RW, et al. Reliability of the foot posture index and traditional measures of foot position. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2003;93:203-213.