Reproducibility of a peripheral quantitative computed tomography scan protocol to measure the material properties of the second metatarsal.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral quantitative computed tomography (pQCT) is an established technology that allows for the measurement of the material properties of bone. Alterations to bone architecture are associated with an increased risk of fracture. Further pQCT research is necessary to identify regions of interest that are prone to fracture risk in people with chronic diseases. The second metatarsal is a common site for the development of insufficiency fractures, and as such the aim of this study was to assess the reproducibility of a novel scanning protocol of the second metatarsal using pQCT. METHODS: Eleven embalmed cadaveric leg specimens were scanned six times; three times with and without repositioning. Each foot was positioned on a custom-designed acrylic foot plate to permit unimpeded scans of the region of interest. Sixty-six scans were obtained at 15% (distal) and 50% (mid shaft) of the second metatarsal. Voxel size and scan speed were reduced to 0.40 mm and 25 mm.sec(-1). The reference line was positioned at the most distal portion of the 2(nd) metatarsal. Repeated measurements of six key variables related to bone properties were subject to reproducibility testing. Data were log transformed and reproducibility of scans were assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and coefficients of variation (CV%). RESULTS: Reproducibility of the measurements without repositioning were estimated as: trabecular area (ICC 0.95; CV% 2.4), trabecular density (ICC 0.98; CV% 3.0), Strength Strain Index (SSI) - distal (ICC 0.99; CV% 5.6), cortical area (ICC 1.0; CV% 1.5), cortical density (ICC 0.99; CV% 0.1), SSI - mid shaft (ICC 1.0; CV% 2.4). Reproducibility of the measurements after repositioning were estimated as: trabecular area (ICC 0.96; CV% 2.4), trabecular density (ICC 0.98; CV% 2.8), SSI - distal (ICC 1.0; CV% 3.5), cortical area (ICC 0.99; CV%2.4), cortical density (ICC 0.98; CV% 0.8), SSI - mid shaft (ICC 0.99; CV% 3.2). CONCLUSIONS: The scanning protocol generated excellent reproducibility for key bone properties measured at the distal and mid-shaft regions of the 2(nd) metatarsal. This protocol extends the capabilities of pQCT to evaluate bone quality in people who may be at an increased risk of metatarsal insufficiency fractures.

Custom-made foot orthoses for the treatment of foot pain.

BACKGROUND: Custom foot orthoses are commonly recommended for the treatment of foot pain. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of custom foot orthoses for different types of foot pain. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2007, Issue 2), MEDLINE (from January 1966), EMBASE (from January 1980), CINAHL (from January 1982) and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) (to June 2007). We also contacted authors of included trials and known researchers in the field and checked the reference lists of included trials to identify trials. No language or publication restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials and controlled clinical trials evaluating custom-made foot orthoses for any type of foot pain. Outcomes included quantifiable levels of foot pain, function, disability, health-related quality of life, participant satisfaction, adverse effects and compliance. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected trials, rated methodological quality and cross checked data extraction. Data were analysed separately for different diagnoses of foot pain and follow-up time points. MAIN RESULTS: Eleven trials involving 1332 participants were included: five trials evaluated custom-made foot orthoses for plantar fasciitis (691 participants); three for foot pain in rheumatoid arthritis (231 participants); and one each for foot pain in pes cavus (154 participants), hallux valgus (209 participants) and juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) (47 participants). Comparisons to custom-made foot orthoses included sham orthoses; no intervention; standardised interventions given to all participants; non-custom (prefabricated) foot orthoses; combined manipulation, mobilisation or stretching; night splints; and surgery. Follow up ranged from one week to three years. Custom-made foot orthoses were effective for painful pes cavus (NNTB:5), rearfoot pain in rheumatoid arthritis (NNTB:4), foot pain in JIA (NNTB:3) and painful hallux valgus (NNTB:6); however, surgery was even more effective for hallux valgus and non-custom foot orthoses appeared just as effective for JIA but the analysis may have lacked sufficient power to detect a difference in effect. It is unclear if custom-made foot orthoses were effective for plantar fasciitis or metatarsophalangeal joint pain in rheumatoid arthritis. Custom-made foot orthoses were a safe intervention in all studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is limited evidence on which to base clinical decisions regarding the prescription of custom-made foot orthoses for the treatment of foot pain. Currently, there is gold level evidence for painful pes cavus and silver level evidence for foot pain in JIA, rheumatoid arthritis, plantar fasciitis and hallux valgus.

"They just scraped off the calluses": a mixed methods exploration of foot care access and provision for people with rheumatoid arthritis in south-western Sydney, Australia.

BACKGROUND: There is little indication that foot health services in Australia are meeting modern day recommendations for Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) patients. The overall objective of this study was to explore the current state of foot health services for patients with RA with an emphasis on identifying barriers to the receipt of appropriate foot care in South-West Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. METHODS: A mixed (quantitative and qualitative) approach was adopted. Indications for appropriate access to foot care were determined by comparing the foot health, disease and socio-demographic characteristics of patients with unmet foot care demands, foot care users and patients with no demands for foot care. Perceptions of provision of, and access to, foot care were explored by conducting telephone-based interviews using an interpretative phenomenology approach with thematic analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-nine participants took part in the cross-sectional quantitative research study design, and 12 participants took part in the interpretative phenomenological approach (qualitative study). Foot care access appeared to be driven predominantly by the presence of rearfoot deformity, which was significantly worse amongst participants in the foot care user group (p = 0.02). Five main themes emerged from the qualitative data: 1) impact of disease-related foot symptoms, 2) footwear difficulties, 3) medical/rheumatology encounters, 4) foot and podiatry care access and experiences, and 5) financial hardship. CONCLUSIONS: Foot care provision does not appear to be driven by appropriate foot health characteristics such as foot pain or foot-related disability. There may be significant shortfalls in footwear and foot care access and provision in Greater Western Sydney. Several barriers to adequate foot care access and provision were identified and further efforts are required to improve access to and the quality of foot care for people who have RA. Integration of podiatry services within rheumatology centres could resolve unmet needs of people with RA by permitting rapid access to expert-led multidisciplinary foot care for people with RA.

Provision of foot health services for people with rheumatoid arthritis in New South Wales: a web-based survey of local podiatrists.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear if podiatric foot care for people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in New South Wales (NSW) meets current clinical recommendations. The objective of this study was to survey podiatrists' perceptions of the nature of podiatric foot care provision for people who have RA in NSW. METHODS: An anonymous, cross-sectional survey with a web-based questionnaire was conducted. The survey questionnaire was developed according to clinical experience and current foot care recommendations. State registered podiatrists practising in the state of NSW were invited to participate. The survey link was distributed initially via email to members of the Australian Podiatry Association (NSW), and distributed further through snowballing techniques using professional networks. Data was analysed to assess significant associations between adherence to clinical practice guidelines, and private/public podiatry practices. RESULTS: 86 podiatrists participated in the survey (78% from private practice, 22% from public practice). Respondents largely did not adhere to formal guidelines to manage their patients (88%). Only one respondent offered a dedicated service for patients with RA. Respondents indicated that the primary mode of accessing podiatry was by self-referral (68%). Significant variation was observed regarding access to disease and foot specific assessments and treatment strategies. Assessment methods such as administration of patient reported outcome measures, vascular and neurological assessments were not conducted by all respondents. Similarly, routine foot care strategies such as prescription of foot orthoses, foot health advice and footwear were not employed by all respondents. CONCLUSIONS: The results identified issues in foot care provision which should be explored through further research. Foot care provision in NSW does not appear to meet the current recommended standards for the management of foot problems in people who have RA. Improvements to foot care could be undertaken in terms of providing better access to examination techniques and treatment strategies that are recommended by evidence based treatment paradigms.