Devoogdt Nele, Cavaggion Claudia, Van der Gucht Elien, Dams Lore, De Groef An, Meeus Mira, Van Hemelrijck Roxane, Heynen Anneleen, Thomis Sarah, Orhan Ceren
Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, KU Leuven-University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Department of Vascular Surgery, Centre for Lymphedema, University Hospitals of Leuven, Pellenberg, Belgium.
Lymphat Res Biol. 2019 Oct;17(5):531-536. doi: 10.1089/lrb.2018.0045. Epub 2019 Jan 16.
To compare interrater reliability and the time-efficiency for the water displacement method, figure-of-eight method, and circumference measurements of the ankle and foot, and to investigate concurrent validity of the figure-of-eight method and circumference measurements with the water displacement method. Thirty patients (21 women and 9 men) with primary or secondary lower limb lymphedema were evaluated twice. The volume of the foot and ankle was measured in three different ways: water displacement with a volumeter, figure-of-eight method, and circumference measurements at the level of the malleoli and metatarsals with a tapeline. The intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) ranged from good to excellent for all measurements (ICCs = 0.99 for water displacement; 0.94 for figure-of-eight; 0.80 and 0.79 for circumference measurement at malleolus and metatarsals). More time was needed to perform the water displacement method than the figure-of-eight method and the circumference measurements ( < 0.001). There was a statistically significant moderate correlation between the water displacement method and the figure-of-eight method ( = 0.65; < 0.001), whereas the correlation coefficient between water displacement method and circumference measurements at malleolus and metatarsals was weak ( = 0.51, < 0.001 and = 0.34, = 0.06, respectively). Compared to the water displacement method, reliability of the figure-of-eight method is comparable, time-efficiency is better and concurrent validity is acceptable. So, in clinical practice, the figure-of-eight method is a good alternative for the water displacement method to evaluate the volume of the foot and ankle.
为比较排水法、“8”字形法以及踝与足周径测量法的评分者间信度和时间效率，并研究“8”字形法和周径测量法与排水法的同时效度。对30例原发性或继发性下肢淋巴水肿患者（21例女性和9例男性）进行了两次评估。采用三种不同方法测量足与踝的体积：用体积计进行排水测量、“8”字形法以及用卷尺测量内踝和跖骨水平的周径。所有测量的组内相关系数（ICC）范围从良好到优秀（排水法ICC = 0.99；“8”字形法ICC = 0.94；内踝和跖骨周径测量的ICC分别为0.80和0.79）。与“8”字形法和周径测量法相比，进行排水法需要更多时间（P < 0.001）。排水法与“8”字形法之间存在统计学上显著的中度相关性（r = 0.65；P < 0.001），而排水法与内踝和跖骨周径测量之间的相关系数较弱（分别为r = 0.51，P < 0.001和r = 0.34，P = 0.06）。与排水法相比，“8”字形法的信度相当，时间效率更高且同时效度可接受。因此，在临床实践中，“8”字形法是评估足与踝体积的排水法的良好替代方法。
