Cargando…

Is it possible to define reference values for radiographic parameters evaluating juvenile flatfoot deformity? A case-control study

BACKGROUND: Numerous radiographic parameters are described to evaluate juvenile flexible flatfeet. Reference values for these measurements are based on few studies. The purpose of this study was to determine boundary values among the most widely used radiographic measurements to evaluate juvenile fl...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hamel, Johannes, Hörterer, Hubert, Harrasser, Norbert
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7731564/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33308201
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-020-03854-6
_version_ 1783621925073846272
author Hamel, Johannes
Hörterer, Hubert
Harrasser, Norbert
author_facet Hamel, Johannes
Hörterer, Hubert
Harrasser, Norbert
author_sort Hamel, Johannes
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Numerous radiographic parameters are described to evaluate juvenile flexible flatfeet. Reference values for these measurements are based on few studies. The purpose of this study was to determine boundary values among the most widely used radiographic measurements to evaluate juvenile flatfeet. METHODS: Twenty-two patients with normal hind-, midfoot configuration (group A: control group; 22 ft, mean age: 12,1 years) and 19 patients with flatfoot deformity (group B: study group; 22 ft, mean age: 12,4 years) were retrospectively analyzed. Nine radiographic parameters were measured (Talocalcaneal-angles, Calcaneal-pitch-angle, Costa-Bartani-angle, Talo-metatarsal-I-angles, Talo-first-metatarsal-base-angle, Talo-navicular-coverage, Calcaneus-fifth-metatarsal-angle). ROC curve analysis was used to calculate optimal differentiating thresholds of each parameter. RESULTS: Four out of nine parameters (TC-dp, TC-lat, Calc-MTV, Calc-P) were not statistically different between the groups and their ability to distinct between normal foot and flatfoot was low (AUC values = 0,660 - 0,819). Calculation of reference values for these parameters was not performed due to threshold ranges between the groups of > 10°. Reference values could be defined only for three parameters: TMTInd >(−)31°, TMTIB >(−)7,5°, TMT-lat > (−)13,5°. The TMTInd was shown to be a very reliable and valid combination of two measurements (TMTIB and TMT-lat) in the differentiation of normal feet and flatfeet (AUC = 0,998). CONCLUSION: The calculation of reference values for established radiographic parameters used to evaluate juvenile flatfeet is difficult for most parameters. The TMTInd as a combination of TMTIB and TMT-lat has been shown to be reliable and valuable to distinct normal feet from flatfeet.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7731564
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-77315642020-12-15 Is it possible to define reference values for radiographic parameters evaluating juvenile flatfoot deformity? A case-control study Hamel, Johannes Hörterer, Hubert Harrasser, Norbert BMC Musculoskelet Disord Research Article BACKGROUND: Numerous radiographic parameters are described to evaluate juvenile flexible flatfeet. Reference values for these measurements are based on few studies. The purpose of this study was to determine boundary values among the most widely used radiographic measurements to evaluate juvenile flatfeet. METHODS: Twenty-two patients with normal hind-, midfoot configuration (group A: control group; 22 ft, mean age: 12,1 years) and 19 patients with flatfoot deformity (group B: study group; 22 ft, mean age: 12,4 years) were retrospectively analyzed. Nine radiographic parameters were measured (Talocalcaneal-angles, Calcaneal-pitch-angle, Costa-Bartani-angle, Talo-metatarsal-I-angles, Talo-first-metatarsal-base-angle, Talo-navicular-coverage, Calcaneus-fifth-metatarsal-angle). ROC curve analysis was used to calculate optimal differentiating thresholds of each parameter. RESULTS: Four out of nine parameters (TC-dp, TC-lat, Calc-MTV, Calc-P) were not statistically different between the groups and their ability to distinct between normal foot and flatfoot was low (AUC values = 0,660 - 0,819). Calculation of reference values for these parameters was not performed due to threshold ranges between the groups of > 10°. Reference values could be defined only for three parameters: TMTInd >(−)31°, TMTIB >(−)7,5°, TMT-lat > (−)13,5°. The TMTInd was shown to be a very reliable and valid combination of two measurements (TMTIB and TMT-lat) in the differentiation of normal feet and flatfeet (AUC = 0,998). CONCLUSION: The calculation of reference values for established radiographic parameters used to evaluate juvenile flatfeet is difficult for most parameters. The TMTInd as a combination of TMTIB and TMT-lat has been shown to be reliable and valuable to distinct normal feet from flatfeet. BioMed Central 2020-12-11 /pmc/articles/PMC7731564/ /pubmed/33308201 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-020-03854-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Hamel, Johannes
Hörterer, Hubert
Harrasser, Norbert
Is it possible to define reference values for radiographic parameters evaluating juvenile flatfoot deformity? A case-control study
title Is it possible to define reference values for radiographic parameters evaluating juvenile flatfoot deformity? A case-control study
title_full Is it possible to define reference values for radiographic parameters evaluating juvenile flatfoot deformity? A case-control study
title_fullStr Is it possible to define reference values for radiographic parameters evaluating juvenile flatfoot deformity? A case-control study
title_full_unstemmed Is it possible to define reference values for radiographic parameters evaluating juvenile flatfoot deformity? A case-control study
title_short Is it possible to define reference values for radiographic parameters evaluating juvenile flatfoot deformity? A case-control study
title_sort is it possible to define reference values for radiographic parameters evaluating juvenile flatfoot deformity? a case-control study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7731564/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33308201
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-020-03854-6
work_keys_str_mv AT hameljohannes isitpossibletodefinereferencevaluesforradiographicparametersevaluatingjuvenileflatfootdeformityacasecontrolstudy
AT hortererhubert isitpossibletodefinereferencevaluesforradiographicparametersevaluatingjuvenileflatfootdeformityacasecontrolstudy
AT harrassernorbert isitpossibletodefinereferencevaluesforradiographicparametersevaluatingjuvenileflatfootdeformityacasecontrolstudy