Standard growth of the foot arch in childhood and adolescence--derived from the measurement results of 10,155 children.

BACKGROUND: The definition of flatfoot remains analytically vague. Toward the purpose of establishing the standard values of the foot length and arch height in childhood and adolescence, large-scale measurement and investigation of the foot arch were conducted using a three-dimensional foot-measuring device. METHODS: Measurements of foot structure were performed on 5311 boys and 4844 girls, for a total of 20,310 ft. of 10,155 children aged from 6 to 18 years during the 2006-2008 year period. The foot length (FL) and the navicular height (NH) were measured, and the arch height ratio (AHR (%)=NH×100/FL) was calculated. RESULTS: The FL in boys showed an extension from the age of 6 to 14 and nearly reached a plateau at 14 years old. In girls, the extension was observed from the age of 6 to 13, and the FL came to a plateau at 13 years old. The NH in boys increased from the age of 6 to 13. In girls, the NH increased from the age of 8 to 13. The AHR, presented a normal distribution, and no differences were observed in the distribution for all ages in boys and girls. In boys, the AHR was almost flat until 11 years old, but elevated in the 11-13 year age period. In girls, the AHR was almost flat until 10 years old, but elevated in the 10-12 year age period. CONCLUSIONS: We are certain that the data demonstrating the normal growth of the foot contribute to the diagnosis and treatment of the failure of the foot to thrive.

Clinical study of chronic lateral ankle instability: injured ligaments compared with stress X-ray examination.

BACKGROUND: A comparative analysis of ankle stress X-ray findings and the condition of injured ligaments in patients with chronic lateral ankle instability was performed to determine a method of identifying the condition of injured ligaments prior to operation. METHODS: Altogether, 36 males and 80 females were included in the study. The average age at the time of operation was 29.4 years. Anterior drawer distances and talar tilt angles were measured manually. During the operations, the injured ligaments were classified into 25 categories. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: The condition of the injured ligaments in patients with a talar tilt angle of more than 15 degrees had injured ligaments that were almost avulsed and degenerated or completely absent.

Development and reliability of a standard rating system for outcome measurement of foot and ankle disorders I: development of standard rating system.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to report the five scales comprising the rating system that the Japanese Society for Surgery of the Foot (JSSF) devised (JSSF standard rating system) and the newly offered interpretations and criteria for determinations of each assessment item. METHODS: We produced the new scales for the JSSF standard system by modifying the clinical rating systems established by the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS scales) and the Japanese Orthopaedic Association's foot rating scale (JOA scale). We also provided interpretations of each assessment item and the criteria of determinations in the new standard system. RESULTS: We improved the ambiguous expressions and content in the conventional standard rating systems so they would be easily understood by Japanese people. The result was five scales in total. Four were designed for use specifically for ankle-hindfoot, midfoot, hallux metatarsophalangeal-interphalangeal, and lesser metatarsophalangeal-ineterphalangeal sites; and the fifth was for the foot and ankle with rheumatoid arthritis. Furthermore, we described interpretations and criteria for determinations with regard to evaluation items in each scale. CONCLUSIONS: Conventionally, the AOFAS scales or the JOA scale have been separately applied depending on the sites or disorders concerned, but it was often difficult to decide on scores during practical evaluations because of differing expressions in different languages and also because of ambiguity in the interpretation of each evaluation item and in scoring standards as well. JSSF improved these scales and added definite interpretations of evaluation items as well as criteria for the rating (to be reported here in part I). Because these steps were expected to improve the reliability of outcomes assessed by each scale, we examined the reliability in scores of the newly developed scales, which are reported in part II (in this issue).

Development and reliability of a standard rating system for outcome measurement of foot and ankle disorders II: interclinician and intraclinician reliability and validity of the newly established standard rating scales and Japanese Orthopaedic Association rating scale.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the validity and inter- and intraclinician reliability of (1) the Japanese Society of Surgery of the Foot (JSSF) standard rating system for four sites [ankle-hindfoot (AH), midfoot (MF), hallux (HL), and lesser toe (LT)] and the rheumatoid arthritis (RA) foot and ankle scale and (2) the Japanese Orthopaedic Association's foot rating scale (JOA scale). METHODS: Clinicians from the same institute independently evaluated participating patients from their institute by two evaluations at a 1- to 4-week interval. Statistical evaluation was as follows. (1) The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated from data collected from at least two examinations of each patient by at least two evaluating clinicians (Data A). (2) Total scores for the two evaluations were determined from the distribution of differences in data between the two evaluations (Data B); each item was evaluated by determining Cohen's coefficient of agreement. (3) The relation between patient satisfaction and total score was investigated only for patients who underwent surgery (Data C). Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was obtained. RESULTS: Participants were 65 clinicians and 610 patients, including those with disorders of the AH (313), MF (47), HL (153), and LT (50) and those with RA (47). From Data A, the ICC was high for AH and HL by JSSF scales and for AH, MF, and LT by the JOA scale. From Data B, the coefficient showed high validity for both scales for AH, with almost no difference between the two scales; the validity for HL was higher with the JOA scale than with the JSSF scale. From Data C, correlations were significant between patient satisfaction and outcome for AH and HL by the JSSF scales and for AH, HL, and LT by the JOA scale. CONCLUSIONS: The validity of both scales was high. Clinical evaluation of the therapeutic results using these scales would be highly reliable.