Validity of footprint analysis to determine flatfoot using clinical diagnosis as the gold standard in a random sample aged 40 years and older

Salvador Pita-Fernández, Cristina González-Martín, Teresa Seoane-Pillado, Beatriz López-Calviño, Sonia Pértega-Díaz, Vicente Gil-Guillén, Salvador Pita-Fernández, Cristina González-Martín, Teresa Seoane-Pillado, Beatriz López-Calviño, Sonia Pértega-Díaz, Vicente Gil-Guillén

Abstract

Background: Research is needed to determine the prevalence and variables associated with the diagnosis of flatfoot, and to evaluate the validity of three footprint analysis methods for diagnosing flatfoot, using clinical diagnosis as a benchmark.

Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study of a population-based random sample ≥ 40 years old (n = 1002) in A Coruña, Spain. Anthropometric variables, Charlson's comorbidity score, and podiatric examination (including measurement of Clarke's angle, the Chippaux-Smirak index, and the Staheli index) were used for comparison with a clinical diagnosis method using a podoscope. Multivariate regression was performed. Informed patient consent and ethical review approval were obtained.

Results: Prevalence of flatfoot in the left and right footprint, measured using the podoscope, was 19.0% and 18.9%, respectively. Variables independently associated with flatfoot diagnosis were age (OR 1.07), female gender (OR 3.55) and BMI (OR 1.39). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) showed that Clarke's angle is highly accurate in predicting flatfoot (AUC 0.94), followed by the Chippaux-Smirak (AUC 0.83) and Staheli (AUC 0.80) indices. Sensitivity values were 89.8% for Clarke's angle, 94.2% for the Chippaux-Smirak index, and 81.8% for the Staheli index, with respective positive likelihood ratios or 9.7, 2.1, and 2.0.

Conclusions: Age, gender, and BMI were associated with a flatfoot diagnosis. The indices studied are suitable for diagnosing flatfoot in adults, especially Clarke's angle, which is highly accurate for flatfoot diagnosis in this population.

Figures

Figure 1.. Measurement of Clarke’s angle, the…
Figure 1.. Measurement of Clarke’s angle, the Chippaux-Smirak index, and the Staheli index
Figure 2.. Receiver operating characteristic curve for…
Figure 2.. Receiver operating characteristic curve for three kinds of footprint analyses to identify factors associated with flatfoot

References

    1. Arunakul M, Amendola A, Gao Y, Goetz JE, Femino JE, Phisitkul P. Tripod index: a new radiographic parameter assessing foot alignment. Foot Ankle Int. 2013;34(10):1411–20. 10.1177/1071100713488761
    1. Dyal CM, Feder J, Deland JT, Thompson FM. Pes planus in patients with posterior tibial tendon insufficiency: asymptomatic versus symptomatic foot. Foot Ankle Int. 1997;18(2):85–8. 10.1177/107110079701800208
    1. Menz HB, Fotoohabadi MR, Wee E, Spink MJ. Visual categorisation of the arch index: a simplified measure of foot posture in older people. J Foot Ankle Res. 2012;5(1):10. 10.1186/1757-1146-5-10
    1. 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;2:22. 10.1186/1757-1146-2-22
    1. Queen RM, Mall NA, Hardaker WM, Nunley JA 2nd. Describing the medial longitudinal arch using footprint indices and a clinical grading system. Foot Ankle Int. 2007;28(4):456–62. 10.3113/FAI.2007.0456
    1. Lizis P, Posadzki P, Smith T. Relationship between explosive muscle strength and medial longitudinal arch of the foot. Foot Ankle Int. 2010;31(9):815–22. 10.3113/FAI.2010.0815
    1. Chen KC, Tung LC, Yeh CJ, Yang JF, Kuo JF, Wang CH. Change in flatfoot of preschool-aged children: a 1-year follow-up study. Eur J Pediatr. 2013;172(2):255–60. 10.1007/s00431-012-1884-4
    1. Staheli LT, Chew DE, Corbett M. The longitudinal arch. A survey of eight hundred and eighty-two feet in normal children and adults. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1987;69(3):426–8.
    1. Papuga MO, Burke JR. The reliability of the Associate Platinum digital foot scanner in measuring previously developed footprint characteristics: a technical note. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2011;34(2):114–8. 10.1016/j.jmpt.2010.12.008
    1. Filoni E, Martins Filho J, Fukuchi RK, Gondo RM. Comparação entre índices do arco plantar; Comparison between different plantar arch. Motriz Rev Educ Fís (Impr). 2009;15(4):850–60.
    1. Chen KC, Yeh CJ, Kuo JF, Hsieh CL, Yang SF, Wang CH. Footprint analysis of flatfoot in preschool-aged children. Eur J Pediatr. 2011;170(5):611–7. 10.1007/s00431-010-1330-4
    1. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373–83. 10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8
    1. Alonso J, Prieto L, Antó JM. La versión española del SF-36 Health Survey (Cuestionario de Salud SF-36): un instrumento para la medida de los resultados clínicos. Med Clin (Barc). 1995;104(20):771–6.
    1. Mahoney FI, Barthel DW. Functional evaluation: the Barthel index. Md State Med J. 1965;14:61–5.
    1. Graf C. The Lawton instrumental activities of daily living scale. Am J Nurs. 2008;108(4):52–62; quiz 62–3. 10.1097/01.NAJ.0000314810.46029.74
    1. Fluss R, Faraggi D, Reiser B. Estimation of the Youden Index and its associated cutoff point. Biom J. 2005;47(4):458–72. 10.1002/bimj.200410135
    1. Youden WJ. Index for rating diagnostic tests. Cancer. 1950;3(1):32–5. 10.1002/1097-0142(1950)3:1<32::AID-CNCR2820030106>;2-3
    1. Yin J, Tian L. Joint confidence region estimation for area under ROC curve and Youden index. Stat Med. 2014;33(6):985–1000. 10.1002/sim.5992
    1. Steurer J, Fischer JE, Bachmann LM, Koller M, ter Riet G. Communicating accuracy of tests to general practitioners: a controlled study. BMJ. 2002;324(7341):824–6. 10.1136/bmj.324.7341.824
    1. Dunn JE, Link CL, Felson DT, Crincoli MG, Keysor JJ, McKinlay JB. Prevalence of foot and ankle conditions in a multiethnic community sample of older adults. Am J Epidemiol. 2004;159(5):491–8. 10.1093/aje/kwh071
    1. Nguyen US, Hillstrom HJ, Li W, Dufour AB, Kiel DP, Procter-Gray E, et al. . Factors associated with hallux valgus in a population-based study of older women and men: the MOBILIZE Boston Study. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2010;18(1):41–6. 10.1016/j.joca.2009.07.008
    1. Robbins JM. Recognizing, treating, and preventing common foot problems. Cleve Clin J Med. 2000;67(1):45–7, 51–2, 55–6. 10.3949/ccjm.67.1.45
    1. Shibuya N, Jupiter DC, Ciliberti LJ, VanBuren V, La Fontaine J. Characteristics of adult flatfoot in the United States. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2010;49(4):363–8. 10.1053/j.jfas.2010.04.001
    1. Atamturk D. [Relationship of flatfoot and high arch with main anthropometric variables]. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2009;43(3):254–9. 10.3944/AOTT.2009.254
    1. Rivera-Saldívar G, Torres-González R, Franco-Valencia M, Ríos-Monroy R, Martínez-Ramírez F, Pérez-Hernández E, et al. . [Risk factors associated with the conformation of the medial longitudinal arch and the symptomatic flat foot in a metropolitan school population in Mexico]. Acta Ortop Mex. 2012;26(2):85–90.
    1. Tenenbaum S, Hershkovich O, Gordon B, Bruck N, Thein R, Derazne E, et al. . Flexible pes planus in adolescents: body mass index, body height, and gender—an epidemiological study. Foot Ankle Int. 2013;34(6):811–7. 10.1177/1071100712472327
    1. Chen KC, Yeh CJ, Tung LC, Yang JF, Yang SF, Wang CH. Relevant factors influencing flatfoot in preschool-aged children. Eur J Pediatr. 2011;170(7):931–6. 10.1007/s00431-010-1380-7
    1. Fuhrmann RA, Trommer T, Venbrocks RA. [The acquired buckling-flatfoot. A foot deformity due to obesity?] Orthopade. 2005;34(7):682–9. 10.1007/s00132-005-0823-8
    1. Groarke P, Galvin R, Kelly J, Stephens MM. Quality of life in individuals with chronic foot conditions: a cross sectional observational study. Foot (Edinb). 2012;22(2):66–9. 10.1016/j.foot.2011.11.007
    1. Menz HB, Roddy E, Thomas E, Croft PR. Impact of hallux valgus severity on general and foot-specific health-related quality of life. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2011;63(3):396–404.
    1. Saro C, Bengtsson AS, Lindgren U, Adami J, Blomqvist P, Felländer-Tsai L. Surgical treatment of hallux valgus and forefoot deformities in Sweden: a population-based study. Foot Ankle Int. 2008;29(3):298–304. 10.3113/FAI.2008.0298
    1. 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;3:21. 10.1186/1757-1146-3-21
    1. Cavanagh PR, Rodgers MM. The arch index: a useful measure from footprints. J Biomech. 1987;20(5):547–51. 10.1016/0021-9290(87)90255-7
    1. Forriol F, Pascual J. Footprint analysis between three and seventeen years of age. Foot Ankle. 1990;11(2):101–4. 10.1177/107110079001100208
    1. Núñez-Samper M, Llanos L. Biomecánica, medicina y cirugía del pie. Vascular. 1997;3(4):27.
    1. de la Fuente JL, González MS, Toledano MC. Podología general y biomecánica: Masson; 2003.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores e Colaboradores

Condições médicas

Intervenções de drogas

3
Se inscrever