ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Year : 2017  |  Volume : 17  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 144-147

Standardized radiological values of foot among Saudi population

Nader Alkenani¹, Mohammed Alaqil², Ammar Murshid², Mohammed Alharbi², Odai Albahli², Suliman Alghnam^3
1 Department of Surgery, Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, King Abdulaziz Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
² Department of Clinical Affairs, College of Medicine, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
³ Research Unit, King Abdullah International Medical Research Center, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Correspondence Address:
Odai Albahli
King Abdulaziz Medical City, Riyadh
Saudi Arabia

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

Check

DOI: 10.4103/sjsm.sjsm_20_17

Background: Radiographic measurements are crucial in determining surgical procedures and preoperative workups. In Saudi Arabia, European-American prostheses are imported. This eventually may not match the population's needs.
Objectives: The objective of the study is to examine radiographic foot measurements in Saudi adult population including central tendency measurements and age-group categorization.
Methodology: In this descriptive retrospective cross-sectional study conducted in Riyadh at King Abdulaziz Medical City, radiological records for 99 individuals including 38 males (38%) between 2010 and 2014 were reviewed. Foot angular measurements of total 1212 measurements were performed on 140 feet for both anterior-posterior (AP) and lateral (LAT) views. On the AP-view including HV, IM1-2, IM1-5, TN, T.C, and AP-Meary angles, while on the LAT-view including LAT-Meary, Hibb, Djian, and confidence interval (CI) angles were measured. All of the patients, on the same hand, are skeletally mature, with a clear history from foot operations, fractures, deformities, traumatic shocks, and degenerative and systemic diseases. Measurements were further categorized by the age groups (18–40 and 41–74) regardless gender.
Results: Angular varieties did not differ significantly between the two age groups, but IM1-5 and CI angles exhibited strong significance (P = 0.01 and 0.049, respectively). There was also no significant difference in angles between right and left feet.
Discussion: Our findings demonstrate that angular measurements of our population differ than other populations. Gender and age group within an extended range might fill the void of the previous studies. The measurements of central tendency for all angles differ than other studies because both populations differ than the other. Although that other studies have some sort of thoroughness, the ethnicity criteria were not mindfully taken. Our study conducted the convenience sampling taking into consideration the fact that ethnicity and other inclusion criteria are crucial.
Conclusion: The standardized angular measurements of foot among Saudi adult differ from other populations. Therefore, local prosthetic designs of foot should be manufactured accordingly.

Keywords: 1212, foot, measurements, radiological

Introduction

1. To estimate the average normal foot based on computerized angular measurements among Saudi adult population
2. To calculate the angular varieties among male and female by sorting the measurements into two different age groups among Saudi adult population [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4].

Figure 1: Maximum, minimum, median, and standard deviation of 139 feet for anterior-posterior aspect for both genders Click here to view

Figure 2: Maximum, minimum, median, mean, and standard deviation of 92 feet for lateral aspect for both genders Click here to view

Figure 3: Arithmetic mean of the angular measurements for anterior-posterior view of two different age groups (G1: 18–40 and G2: 41–74) along with the P value. The standard deviation of G1. The standard deviation of G2 Click here to view

Figure 4: Arithmetic mean of the angular measurements for anterior-posterior view of two different age groups (G1: 18–40 and G2: 41–74) along with the P value. The standard deviation of G1. The standard deviation of G2 Click here to view

Methodology

Results

Discussion

Conclusion

• The standardized angular measurements of foot among Saudi adult population comparing to other populations are not alike; hence, prosthetic designs of foot should be made according to the society ^{[11],[12],[13],[14],[15]}
• There is no difference between the right and left feet between the two genders according to our study
• Angular varieties did not differ significantly between the two age groups, but IM1-5 and confidence interval angles exhibited strong significance (P = 0.01 and 0.049, respectively).^{[16],[17],[18],[19]}

References

1.	Roddy E, Zhang W, Doherty M. Prevalence and associations of hallux valgus in a primary care population. J Bone Joint Surg 2008;59:857-62.
2.	Karasick D, Wapner KL. Hallux valgus deformity: Preoperative radiologic assessment. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1990;155:119-23.
3.	Steel MW 3rd, Johnson KA, DeWitz MA, Ilstrup DM. Radiographic measurements of the normal adult foot. Foot Ankle 1980;1:151-8.
4.	Thomas JL, Kunkel MW, Lopez R, Sparks D. Radiographic values of the adult foot in a standardized population. J Foot Ankle Surg 2006;45:3-12.
5.	Fuson SM, Smith SD. Angular relationships of the metatarsal, talus and calcaneus: A radiographic analysis. J Am Podiatry Assoc 1978;68:463-6.
6.	Bryant A, Tinley P, Singer K. A comparison of radiographic measurements in normal, hallux valgus, and hallux limitus feet. J Foot Ankle Surg 2000;39:39-43.
7.	Haas M. Radiographic and biomechanical considerations of bunion surgery. In: Gerbert J, Sokoloff TH, editors. Textbook of Bunion Surgery. Mount Kisco, NY: Futura; 1981. p. 23-61.
8.	Laporta G, Melillo T, Olinsky D. X-ray evaluation of hallux abducto valgus deformity. J Am Podiatry Assoc 1974;64:544-66.
9.	Gamble FO, Yale I. Clinical Foot Roentgenology. New York: Krieger Publishing Co.; 1975. p. 186-208.
10.	Hardy RH, Clapham JC. Observations on hallux valgus; based on a controlled series. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1951;33-B: 376-91.
11.	Fallat LM, Buckholz J. An analysis of the tailor's bunion by radiographic and anatomical display. J Am Podiatry Assoc 1980;70:597-603.
12.	Sorto LA Jr., Balding MG, Weil LS, Smith SD. Hallux abductus interphalangeus: Etiology, x-ray evaluation and treatment. J Am Podiatry Assoc 1976;66:384-96.
13.	Kimartin RL, Barrington RL, Wallace WW. The x-ray measurement of hallux valgus: An inter- and intra-observer error study. Foot 1992;2:7-11.
14.	Brage ME, Bennett CR, Whitehurst JB, Getty PJ, Toledano A. Observer reliability in ankle radiographic measurements. Foot Ankle Int 1997;18:324-9.
15.	Palladino SJ, Towfigh A. Intra-evaluator variability in the measurement of proximal articular set angle. J Foot Surg 1992;31:120-3.
16.	Schneider W, Csepan R, Knahr K. Reproducibility of the radiographic metatarsophalangeal angle in hallux surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003;85-A: 494-9.
17.	Kaschak T, Laine W. Surgical Radiology, Clinics in Podiatric Medicine and Surgery. Vol. 5. Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders; 1988. p. 797-829.
18.	Baron RL, Gianfortune PJ, Evans DP, Strugielski CF. Imaging/radiology. In: Benard MA, Kravitz SR, editors. Review Text in Podiatric Orthopedics and Primary Podiatric Medicine. Baltimore, MD: Data Trace Publishing; 1997.
19.	Engel E, Erlick N, Krems I. A simplified metatarsus adductus angle. J Am Podiatry Assoc 1983;73:620-8.

This article has been cited by 1 Radiographic angular measurements of the foot and ankle in weight-bearing: a literature review Claudio Carrara,Paolo Caravaggi,Claudio Belvedere,Alberto Leardini Foot and Ankle Surgery. 2019; [Pubmed] | [DOI]