12
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The foot drawing method: reliability of measuring foot length and outward rotation in children with clubfoot

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The Ponseti method is the gold standard for clubfoot treatment. However, relapse and residual gait deviations are common, and follow-up until 7 years of age is recommended. We evaluated the reliability of the foot drawing method, a new instrument for the follow-up of clubfoot. The method uses drawings of the foot in the neutral position and external rotation to measure foot length and outward rotation.

          Methods

          Nineteen children aged 2.5–7 years who were treated with the Ponseti method for congenital clubfoot were included. Two raters made the drawings twice (D1 and D2). Each rater measured foot length, foot rotation, and foot–tibial rotation independently (D1). Later, the raters repeated the measurements (D2). Interrater reliability was assessed using the D1 from each rater. Intrarater reliability was assessed using the measurements from each rater’s D1 and D2. Bland–Altman plots were used to visualize the limits of agreement (LoA). The mean, 95% confidence interval, and one standard deviation of the differences in all measurements were calculated.

          Results

          The mean differences between and within raters were: foot length < 1 mm, foot rotation < 1°, and foot–tibia rotation < 2°, which indicated no systematic differences. The LoA for foot length were: 4.5 mm and 5.9 mm between raters for D1, − 4.8 mm and 5.9 mm for rater 1 (D1–D2), and − 5.1 mm and 5 mm for rater 2 (D1–D2). The LoA for foot rotation: were − 12° and 10.6° between raters (D1), − 8.4° and 6.6° for rater 1 (D1–D2), and − 14° and 14.1° for rater 2 (D1–D2). The LoA for foot–tibia rotation were: − 17.8° and 14.3° between raters (D1), − 12° and 12.2° for rater 1 (D1–D2), and − 12.7° and 13.6° for rater 2 (D1– D2).

          Conclusions

          The absence of systematic differences between and within raters, and LoA observed indicate that the foot drawing method is applicable in clinical practice and research. However, the results of the foot and foot–tibia rotation analyses imply that caution is needed when interpreting changes in foot rotation in feet with higher degrees of rotation.

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-022-05465-9.

          Related collections

          Most cited references22

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Book: not found

          R: A language and environment for statistical computing

          (2020)
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The Classic: Congenital Club Foot: The Results of Treatment

            This Classic article is a reprint of the original work by Ignacio V. Ponseti and Eugene N. Smoley, Congenital Club Foot: The Results of Treatment. An accompanying biographical sketch on Ignacio V. Ponseti, MD, is available at DOI 10.1007/s11999-009-0719-8 and a second Classic article is available at 10.1007/s11999-009-0721-1. This article is ©1963 by the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc., and is reprinted with permission from Ponseti IV, Smoley EN. Congenital Club Foot: The Results of Treatment. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1963;45:261–344.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Relapsing clubfoot: causes, prevention, and treatment.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                evgenia.manousaki@med.lu.se
                hanneke.andriesse@med.lu.se
                gunnar.hagglund@med.lu.se
                axel.strom@skane.se
                anna-clara.esbjornsson@med.lu.se
                Journal
                BMC Musculoskelet Disord
                BMC Musculoskelet Disord
                BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-2474
                28 May 2022
                28 May 2022
                2022
                : 23
                : 506
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.4514.4, ISNI 0000 0001 0930 2361, Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Orthopedics, , Lund University, Skane University Hospital, ; 221 85 Lund, Sweden
                [2 ]GRID grid.417806.c, ISNI 0000 0004 0624 0507, Department of Orthopedics, , Central Hospital in Växjö, ; Växjö, Sweden
                [3 ]GRID grid.411843.b, ISNI 0000 0004 0623 9987, Clinical Studies Sweden Forum South, , Skane University Hospital, ; Lund, Sweden
                Article
                5465
                10.1186/s12891-022-05465-9
                9145159
                35624496
                00d9a77a-8407-4593-970f-d62fa0f22774
                © The Author(s) 2022

                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.

                History
                : 23 January 2022
                : 19 May 2022
                Funding
                Funded by: Södra sjukvårdsregionen
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100009779, Region Kronoberg;
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100009389, Stiftelsen Promobilia;
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100006075, Greta och Johan Kocks stiftelser;
                Funded by: Faculty of Medicine, Lund University
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100009780, Region Skåne;
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100010814, Stiftelsen för Bistånd åt Rörelsehindrade i Skåne;
                Funded by: Lund University
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2022

                Orthopedics
                clubfoot,foot length,foot rotation,reliability
                Orthopedics
                clubfoot, foot length, foot rotation, reliability

                Comments

                Comment on this article