Kwon O Y, Tuttle L J, Commean P K, Mueller M J
Department of Physical Therapy, College of Health Science, Yonsei University, South Korea.
Foot (Edinb). 2009 Sep;19(3):149-55. doi: 10.1016/j.foot.2009.03.004.
Measures of second-fourth metatarsophalangeal joint (MTPJ) angle (indicator of hammer toe deformity) and clinical measures of tibial torsion have limited evidence for validity and reliability. The purposes of this study are to determine: (1) reliability of using a 3D digitizer (Metrecom) and computed tomography (CT) to measure MTPJ angle for toes 2-4; (2) reliability of goniometer, 3D digitizer, and CT to measure tibial torsion; (3) validity of MTPJ angle measures for toes 2-4 using goniometry and 3D digitizer compared to CT (gold standard) and (4) validity of tibial torsion measures using goniometry and 3D digitizer (Metrecom) compared to CT (gold standard).
Twenty-nine subjects participated in this study. 27 feet with hammer toe deformity and 31 feet without hammer toe deformity were tested using standardized gonimetric, 3D digitizer and CT methods. ICCs (3,1), standard error of the measurement (SEM) values, and difference measures were used to characterize intrarater reliability. Pearson correlation coefficients and an analysis of variance were used to determine associations and differences between the measurement techniques.
3D digitizer and CT measures of MTPJ angle had high test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.95-0.96 and 0.98-0.99, respectively; SEM = 2.64-3.35 degrees and 1.42-1.47 degrees, respectively). Goniometry, 3D digitizer, and CT measures of tibial torsion had good test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.75, 0.85, and 0.98, respectively; SEM = 2.15 degrees, 1.74 degrees, and 0.72 degree, respectively). Both goniometric and 3D digitizer measures of MTPJ angle were highly correlated with CT measures of MTPJ angle (r = 0.84-0.90, r = 0.84-0.88, respectively) and tibial torsion (r = 0.72, r = 0.83). Goniometry, 3D digitizer, and CT measures were all different from each other for measures of hammer toe deformity (p < 0.001). Goniometry measures were different from CT measures and 3D digitizer measures of tibial torsion (p < 0.002). CT measures and 3D digitizer measures of tibial torsion were similar (p = 0.112).
These results suggest that 3D digitizer and CT scan measures of MTPJ angle and goniometric, 3D digitizer, and CT scan measures of tibial torsion are reliable. Goniometer and 3D digitizer measures of MTPJ angle and tibial torsion measures are highly correlated with the gold standard CT method indicating good validity of measures, but the measures are not interchangeable.
第二至第四跖趾关节(MTPJ)角度(锤状趾畸形指标)的测量方法以及胫骨扭转的临床测量方法在有效性和可靠性方面的证据有限。本研究的目的是确定:(1)使用三维数字化仪(Metrecom)和计算机断层扫描(CT)测量第2至4趾MTPJ角度的可靠性;(2)使用测角仪、三维数字化仪和CT测量胫骨扭转的可靠性;(3)与CT(金标准)相比,使用测角法和三维数字化仪测量第2至4趾MTPJ角度的有效性;(4)与CT(金标准)相比,使用测角法和三维数字化仪(Metrecom)测量胫骨扭转的有效性。
29名受试者参与了本研究。使用标准化的测角法、三维数字化仪和CT方法对27例有锤状趾畸形的足和31例无锤状趾畸形的足进行了测试。组内相关系数(ICCs,3,1)、测量标准误(SEM)值和差异测量用于表征测量者内部的可靠性。使用Pearson相关系数和方差分析来确定测量技术之间的关联和差异。
三维数字化仪和CT测量的MTPJ角度具有较高的重测可靠性(ICCs分别为0.95 - 0.96和0.98 - 0.99;SEM分别为2.64 - 3.35度和1.42 - 1.47度)。测角法、三维数字化仪和CT测量的胫骨扭转具有良好的重测可靠性(ICCs分别为0.75、0.85和0.98;SEM分别为2.15度、1.74度和0.72度)。测角法和三维数字化仪测量的MTPJ角度均与CT测量的MTPJ角度高度相关(r分别为0.84 - 0.90和0.84 - 0.88)以及与胫骨扭转高度相关(r分别为0.72和0.83)。对于锤状趾畸形的测量,测角法、三维数字化仪和CT测量结果彼此均不同(p < 0.001)。测角法测量结果与CT测量结果以及三维数字化仪测量的胫骨扭转结果不同(p < 0.002)。CT测量结果和三维数字化仪测量的胫骨扭转结果相似(p = 0.112)。
这些结果表明,三维数字化仪和CT扫描测量的MTPJ角度以及测角法、三维数字化仪和CT扫描测量的胫骨扭转是可靠的。测角仪和三维数字化仪测量的MTPJ角度以及胫骨扭转测量结果与金标准CT方法高度相关,表明测量方法具有良好的有效性,但这些测量方法不可互换。