medigraphic.com
ISSN 1561-3100 (Print)

2022, Number 1

<< Back

Revista Cubana de Ortopedia y Traumatología 2022; 36 (1)

Measurements of the foot photo images as a non-invasive and valid methodology in clinical examination

Rodríguez-Alonso D, Fernández-Sánchez C, Benites CSM

Language: Spanish
References: 24
Page: 1-12
PDF size: 350.39 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: The musculoskeletal anatomical evaluation by imaging in the clinical examination of the diabetic foot is digital photography that assesses the superficial morphology.
Objectives: To validate the obtaining of photographic images of the foot, to calculate the longitudinal and angular measurements and the index of the plantar arch, from the photographic images of the foot by photogrammetry, and to categorize the normality of the shape in healthy subjects, based on these photographic images.
Methods: This an exploratory study in 30 healthy individuals evaluated at the Diabetic Foot Clinical Unit in Trujillo city, using a prototype of cameras around a podoscope and image analysis software. The photographic image was evaluated by longitudinal and angular measurements and the plantar arch index.
Results: The patients evaluated had a mean age of 25.06+/-11.95 years, and women predominated. Total foot length and metatarsal width on the right side were 226.55 ± 36.49 mm and 98.99 ± 22.71 mm, respectively; and on the left side it was 229.81 ± 42.25 mm and 104.49 ± 16.84 mm, respectively. The 1st-2nd ray intermetatarsal angle, 4th-5th ray intermetatarsal angle and hindfoot angle for the right side were 14 ± 4º, 11 ± 3º and 2 ± 2º respectively; for the left side 14 ± 3º, 9 ± 3º and 2 ± 2º respectively, and the plantar index of the right and left arch were 0.23 ± 0.2 and 0.22 ± 0.1 respectively. Variability only occurred in the forefoot in 20% of cases.
Conclusions: Obtaining of the photographic images of the foot was valid, measurements were smaller or similar to other studies. The variability of normality only appeared in the forefoot.


REFERENCES

  1. Zheng Y, Ley SH, Hu FB. Global aetiology and epidemiology of type 2 diabetes mellitus and its complications. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2018 [acceso 29/10/2019];14(2):88-98. Disponible en: Disponible en: https://www.nature.com/articles/nrendo.2017.151

  2. Bus SA, van Netten JJ, Lavery LA, Monteiro-Soares M, Rasmussen A, Jubiz Y. IWGDF guidance on the prevention of foot ulcers in at-risk patients with diabetes. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2016;32(S1):16-24. DOI: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/dmrr.2696

  3. Hazenberg CEVB, Aan de Stegge WB, Van Baal SG, Moll FL, Bus SA. Telehealth and telemedicine applications for the diabetic foot: A systematic review. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2020 [acceso 30/08/2021];36(3):1-11. Disponible en: Disponible en: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7079242/pdf/DMRR-36-e3247.pdf

  4. Quinn, G. Normal genetic variation of the human foot: Part 2: Population variance, epigenetic mechanisms, and developmental constraint in function. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2012 [acceso 29/10/2019];102(2):149-56. Disponible en: Disponible en: https://meridian.allenpress.com/japma/article-abstract/102/2/149/183312/Normal-Genetic-Variation-of-the-Human-Foot-Part?redirectedFrom=fulltext

  5. De Georgiev G. Significance of anatomical variations for clinical practice undefined. Int J Anat Var. 2017 [acceso 30/08/2020];10(3):43-4. Disponible en: Disponible en: https://www.pulsus.com/scholarly-articles/significance-of-anatomical-variations-for-clinical-practice.pdf

  6. Zhao X, Tsujimoto T, Kim B, Katayama Y, Tanaka K. Characteristics of foot morphology and their relationship to gender, age, body mass index and bilateral asymmetry in Japanese adults. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2017 [acceso 02/09/2021];30(3):527-35. Disponible en: Disponible en: https://content.iospress.com/articles/journal-of-back-and-musculoskeletal-rehabilitation/bmr150501

  7. Cooke SB, Terhune CE. Form, function, and geometric morphometrics. Anat Rec Hoboken. 2017;298(1):5-28. DOI: https://anatomypubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ar.23065

  8. Struck R, Cordoni S, Aliott S, Pérez-Pachón L, Gröning F. Application of Photogrammetry in Biomedical Science. In: Rea PM (eds.). USA: Biomedical Visualisation. ed. Springer International Publishing; 2019. p. 121-30. [acceso 02/10/2021]. Disponible en: Disponible en: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-030-06070-1_10

  9. Yadav S, Hossain MT, Shimmi S, Chaudhary B, Khan G. Digital Photography: An alternative for estimation of different dimensions of foot. Pharm Biol Eval. 2015 [acceso 29/10/2019];2:60-3. Disponible en: Disponible en: https://www.academia.edu/14049675/Digital_Photography_An_alternative_for_estimation_of_different_dimensions_of_foot

  10. O’Meara D, Vanwanseele B, Hunt A, Smith R. The reliability and validity of a three-camera foot image system for obtaining foot anthropometrics. J Appl Biomech. 2010 [acceso 29/10/2019];26(3):349-56. Disponible en: Disponible en: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30691761/

  11. Ashnagar Z, Reza Hadian M, Olyaei G, Talebian Moghadam S, Rezasoltani R, Saeedi H, et al. Reliability of digital photography for assessing lower extremity alignment in individuals with flatfeet and normal feet types. J. Bodyw. Mov Ther. 2017 [acceso 29/10/2019];21(3):704-10. Disponible en: Disponible en: https://www.bodyworkmovementtherapies.com/article/S1360-8592(16)30279-0/fulltext

  12. Govsa F, Nteli Chatzioglou G, Hepguler S, Pinar Y, Bedre O. Variable Lower Limb Alignment of Clinical Measures with Digital Photographs and the Footscan Pressure System. J Sport Rehabil. 2020 [acceso 02/10/2021];30(3):437-44. Disponible en: Disponible en: https://journals.humankinetics.com/view/journals/jsr/30/3/article-p437.xml

  13. Nix S, Russell T, Vicenzino B, Smith M. Validity and reliability of hallux valgus angle measured on digital photographs. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2012 [acceso 30/08/2020];42(7):642-8. Disponible en: Disponible en: https://core.ac.uk/reader/10911356?utm_source=linkout

  14. Fallat LM, Buckholz J. An analysis of the tailor’s bunion by radiographic and anatomical display. J Am Podiatry Assoc. 1980;70:597-603. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7547/87507315-70-12-597

  15. Alazzawi S, Sukeik M, King D, Vemulapalli K. Foot and ankle history and clinical examination: A guide to everyday practice. World J Orthop. 2017 [acceso 30/10/2020];8(1): 21-9. Disponible en: Disponible en: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5241541/pdf/WJO-8-21.pdf

  16. Pohl MB, Farr LA. Comparison of foot arch measurement reliability using both digital photography and calliper methods. Journal of Foot and Ankle Research. 2010 [acceso 30/10/2020];3:1-6. Disponible en: Disponible en: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2914096/

  17. Diniz KMA, de Oliveira Mascarenhas R, Freire R, Netto Bittencourt NF, De Michelis Mendonça L. Correlation between goniometric and photogrammetric assessment of shank-forefoot alignment in athletes. Foot (Edinb). 2020;45:1-25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foot.2020.101687

  18. Hu A, Arnold JB, Causby R, Jones S. The identification and reliability of static and dynamic barefoot impression measurements: A systematic review. Forensic Sci Int. 2018;289:156-64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2018.05.008

  19. Jurca A, Žabkar J, Džeroski S. Analysis of 1.2 million-foot scans from North America, Europe and Asia. Sci Rep. 2019 [acceso 02/10/2021];9(1):1-10. Disponible en: Disponible en: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6914786/

  20. Paiva de Castro A, Rubens Rebelatto JR, Rabiatti Aurichio T. The Effect of Gender on Foot Anthropometrics in Older People. Journal of Sport Rehabilitation. 2011 [acceso 30/10/2020];20:277-86. Disponible en: Disponible en: https://journals.humankinetics.com/view/journals/jsr/20/3/article-p277.xml

  21. Guidozzi F. Foot problems in older women. Climacteric. 2017 [acceso 02/10/2021];20(6):518-21. Disponible en: Disponible en: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13697137.2017.1373335?journalCode=icmt20

  22. Şaylı U, Altunok EÇ, Güven M, Akman B, Biros J, Şaylı A. Prevalence estimation and familial tendency of common forefoot deformities in Turkey: A survey of 2662 adults. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2018 [acceso 02/10/2021];52(3):167-73. Disponible en: Disponible en: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6136324/

  23. Malhotra K, Davda K, Singh D. The pathology and management of lesser toe deformities. EFORT Open Rev. 2017;1(11):409-19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/2058-5241.1.160017

  24. Federer AE, Tainter DM, Adams SB, Schweitzer KM Jr . Conservative Management of Metatarsalgia and Lesser Toe Deformities. Foot Ankle Clin. 2018;23(1):9-20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcl.2017.09.003




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com