Do Dynamic Plantar Pressures Differ Based on Sonographic Evidence of Metatarsophalangeal Joint Synovitis in People With Rheumatoid Arthritis?

OBJECTIVE: The metatarsophalangeal joints (MTPJs) are the most common location for synovitis in people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), yet their association with plantar foot pressures has received very little attention. This study aimed to determine whether plantar pressures differed based on sonographic evidence of MTPJ synovitis in people with RA. METHOD: Ultrasound was used to assess synovitis (grey scale synovial hypertrophy and power Doppler signal) in MTPJs 1 to 5 using the combined EULAR/Outcome Measures in Rheumatology scoring system. Peak pressure (PP) and pressure time integrals (PTIs) were assessed during barefoot walking for seven plantar foot regions (heel, midfoot, first metatarsal, second metatarsal, third to fifth metatarsals, hallux, lesser toes). Mixed-effects linear regression was used to determine the difference in PP and PTI between MTPJs with none/minimal synovitis and MTPJs with moderate/severe synovitis. RESULTS: Thirty-five participants with RA were included. Mean age was 66.3 years and mean disease duration was 22.2 years. Participants with sonographic evidence of moderate/severe synovitis at the first MTPJ had reduced PTI at the hallux compared with those with none/minimal synovitis at this joint (P = 0.039). Participants with moderate/severe synovitis at the second MTPJ and fourth MTPJ had reduced PP and reduced PTI at lesser toes compared with those with none/minimal synovitis in these joints (all P ≤ 0.048). No significant differences were observed for synovitis in other joints. CONCLUSION: These findings may be suggestive of an inverse relationship between plantar pressure and soft tissue pathology, which is consistent with an offloading strategy and reduced use of the toes during propulsion.

The evaluation of podiatrists, with knowledge and training in diagnostic musculoskeletal ultrasound, to describe sonographic images of diabetic foot wounds in the United Kingdom and Australia.

AIMS: Currently, wound management decisions are based largely on visual observations such as photographs, descriptors or measurements which can lack detail and do not always capture the sub-wound area. A previous case series suggests that there is benefit in using ultrasound imaging (USI) to evaluate diabetic foot ulcers (DFU) at point-of-care, however no guidance exists to inform its use. This scoping exercise explores the capacity of podiatrists with experience in interpreting musculoskeletal structures using USI to interpret sonographic images of DFU. METHODS: Following a short briefing session, podiatrists with previous musculoskeletal (MSK) USI training were asked to review and report on previously recorded static sonographic images (n = 8) of active DFU. Content analysis was utilised to identify recurring keywords within the podiatrists' reports which were coded and assigned to categories to gain context to the data. RESULTS: Seven podiatrists participated in the study. Four categories were constructed for the purposes of analysis: 1) Frequency of reporting, 2) Language used in reporting, 3) Observations, 4) Clinical impression Frequently, the reported findings between podiatrists were found to be similar, especially those related to bone morphology. However greater variability was seen in the reporting of wound specific soft-tissue observations. CONCLUSION: This scoping exercise has shown that podiatrists can translate their existing USI skills to make rudimentary reports on clinical findings in DFU. All participants were consistently able to identify and describe characteristics associated with DFU from a single b mode static wound ultrasound image. Findings from this investigation can be used as a foundation for further work to establish accuracy and reliability to validate DFU sonography. In conjunction the development of protocols and training materials will enable the adoption of USI to assess DFU in clinical practice. This will in turn, contribute to improved patient care and establish a new paradigm for wound surveillance which is translatable to other wound types.

Effect of Heeled Shoes on Joint Symptoms and Knee Osteoarthritis in Older Adults: A 5-Year Follow-Up Study.

OBJECTIVE: Our aims were to examine the effects of heeled shoes on incident knee osteoarthritis (OA) and joint pain. METHODS: We used longitudinal data from the Chingford 1000 Women Study (Chingford Study), a prospective cohort of women aged 50 years or older. Participants with musculoskeletal disorders and/or a history of knee-related injury/surgery were excluded. Participants were followed for up to 5 years for incident outcomes including 1) radiographic knee OA (RKOA) and 2) joint pain (feet, knees, hips, and back). Footwear data, including ever worn heels of 2 inches or more and daytime/evening hours (per week) spent wearing heeled shoes over five decades (ages <20 years, 20-30 years, 30-40 years, and >50 years), were available at Year 10 whereas knee radiographs and joint symptom data were also collected at Year 15. Cumulative time spent wearing heeled shoes was calculated for women reporting ever-use of heeled shoes (≥2 inches). Multiple logistic regression was used to examine the relationship between exposures and outcomes (from Year 10 to Year 15). RESULTS: A total of 356 women were eligible at Year 10 with a median (interquartile range) age of 60 (56-65) years. Compared with non-use, ever-use of heeled shoes (≥2 inches) was not associated with incident RKOA (1.35; 95% confidence interval: 0.56-3.27). No associations were observed between increasing cumulative time spent wearing heels and incident outcomes. CONCLUSION: Compared with the non-use of heeled shoes, ever-use of heels (≥2 inches) was not associated with incident RKOA and incident joint symptoms. Further, increasing cumulative time spent wearing heels was not associated with any of our outcomes.

Exploring the use of musculoskeletal ultrasound imaging by podiatrists: an international survey.

BACKGROUND: Podiatrists, in musculoskeletal services, are demonstrating an expansion of their practice skills through the use of ultrasound imaging. There is an assumption that this practice is beneficial within the context of patient care and health systems. The aim of this research was to further investigate the use of musculoskeletal ultrasound (MSUS) by podiatrists within their clinical setting and gain additional insights into the impact that they perceive use of MSUS has on their approaches to management of musculoskeletal foot and ankle problems. METHOD: An international study utilising a cross-sectional design and an internet-based platform was undertaken. The survey was developed and implemented through three phases: 1. survey development, 2. face validity agreement via questionnaire review, and 3. survey distribution and data collection. Twenty-two survey questions were developed and set as a two-step approach collecting quantitative data (part 1) and qualitative free text data (part 2). Data was exported from SurveyMonkey and analysed using Microsoft Excel software. Counts and frequencies were calculated for responses to all twenty closed questions. Responses to the two final open-ended questions were analysed using thematic analysis to search for patterns related to podiatrists' perceptions of impact. RESULTS: Two hundred and thirty-two eligible participants consented to complete the survey. The majority (n = 159) of respondents were from the UK and Spain. Commonly MSUS has been used in practice for (i) diagnosing pathology, (ii) supporting rehabilitation, (iii) supporting interventions or (iv) research purposes. Most frequently, MSUS was used to assist in the diagnosis of injury/pathology (84%). A range of free text comments were received from the participants in response to the question relating to their thoughts on the impact of using MSUS imaging in their practice (n = 109) and on their perceptions of how the use of MSUS has influenced their approaches to management of their patients' musculoskeletal foot and ankle problems (n = 108). Thematic analysis of the free text comments generated four themes: (i) diagnosis, (ii) delivery and access of care, (iii) patient education and engagement, and (iv) patient empowerment. CONCLUSION: The perceived benefit podiatrists indicated in using MSUS as part of their practice is the perceived improvement in patient journeys through tighter, focused management plans and reduced waiting times. An additional novel finding was that MSUS provided the capacity for podiatrists to better inform patients of their diagnosis, which they believed led to improved engagement and consequent empowerment of patients in their treatment plans. We propose further investigation of patient experiences as well as testing of the model that embeds podiatrists' use of MSUS as a key skill in musculoskeletal foot and ankle services.

Stakeholder views of podiatry services in the UK for people living with arthritis: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to explore the views of stakeholders in podiatry services, patients, commissioners and general practitioners (GP), to further understand experiences of referral, access and provision of treatment in the National Health Service (NHS) for foot problems for patients living with arthritis. METHOD: To explore in-depth individual views and experiences of stakeholders in podiatry services, 19 patients who had arthritis (osteoarthritis and/or rheumatoid arthritis) participated in one of four focus groups. In addition, seven commissioners and/or GPs took part in semi structured interviews. A purposive sampling strategy was adopted for all focus groups and semi structured interviews. To account for geographical variations, the focus groups and semi structured interviews were conducted across two predetermined regions of the United Kingdom (UK), Yorkshire and Hampshire. Data was rendered anonymous and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis was employed to identify key meanings and report patterns within the data. RESULTS: Five key themes derived from the focus groups and interviews suggest a variety of factors influencing referral, access and provision of treatment for foot problems within the UK. 1. Systems working together (navigation of different care pathways, access and referral opportunities for people with OA or RA, education around foot health services for people with OA or RA); 2.Finance (financial variations, different care systems, wasting resources); 3. Understanding what podiatry services have to offer (podiatrists are leaders in foot health services, service requirements in relation to training standards and health needs); 4. Person factors of foot pain (arthritis is invisible, affects quality of life, physical and mental wellbeing); 5. Facilitators of foot care (NICE guidelines, stakeholder events, supporting self-management strategies). CONCLUSION: The findings indicate that patients, commissioners and GPs have very similar experiences of referral, access and provision of treatment for foot problems, for patients living with arthritis. Essentially, commissioners and GPs interviewed called for a transformational approach in current systems to include newer models of care that meet the footcare needs of individual patient circumstances. Patients interviewed called for better signposting and information about the different services available to help them manage their foot health needs. To address this, we have formulated a signposting pack for all stakeholders to help them facilitate access to appropriate clinicians 'at the right time, in the right place' to manage foot health problems.

The clinical diagnosis of symptomatic forefoot neuroma in the general population: a Delphi consensus study.

BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence for defining what specific method or methods should be used to clinically influence clinical decision making for forefoot neuroma. The aim of this study was to develop a clinical assessment protocol that has agreed expert consensus for the clinical diagnosis of forefoot neuroma. METHODS: A four-round Delphi consensus study was completed with 16 expert health professionals from either a clinical or clinical academic background, following completion of a structured literature review. Clinical experience ranged from 5 to 34 years (mean: 19.5 years). Consensus was sought on the optimal methods to achieve the clinical diagnosis of forefoot neuroma. Round 1 sought individual input with an open ended question. This developed a list of recommendations. Round 2 and 3 asked the participants to accept or reject each of the recommendations in the list in relation to the question: "What is the best way to clinically diagnose neuroma in the forefoot?" Votes that were equal to or greater than 60% were accepted into the next round; participant's votes equal to or less then 20% were excluded. The remaining participant's votes between 20 to 60% were accepted and placed into the following round for voting. Round 4 asked the participants to rank the list of recommendations according to the strength of recommendation they would give in relation to the question: "What is the best way to clinically diagnose neuroma in the forefoot?" The recruitment and Delphi rounds were conducted through email. RESULTS: In round 1, the 16 participants identified 68 recommendations for the clinical diagnosis of forefoot neuroma. In round 2, 27 recommendations were accepted, 11 recommendations were rejected and 30 recommendations were assigned to be re-voted on. In round 3, 36 recommendations were accepted, 22 recommendations were rejected and 11 recommendations were assigned to be re-voted on. In round 4, 21 recommendations were selected by the participants to form the expert derived clinical assessment protocol for the clinical diagnosis of forefoot neuroma. From these 21 recommendations, a set of themes were established: location of pain, non weight bearing sensation, weight bearing sensation, observations, tests and imaging. CONCLUSION: Following the identification of 21 method recommendations, a core set of clinical diagnostic methods have been prepared as a clinical assessment protocol for the diagnosis of forefoot neuroma. Based on expert opinion, the core set will assist clinicians in forming a clearer diagnosis of forefoot neuroma.