ACR Meeting Abstracts

ACR Meeting Abstracts

Abstract Number: 412

Baseline Values for Plantar Pressure and Background Characteristics As Indicators for the Limit of Conservative Treatment of Rheumatoid Forefoot Deformity

Hyunho Lee1, Hajime Ishikawa1, Asami Abe1, Yumi Nomura1, Eriko Hasegawa1, Chinatsu Takai1, Daisuke Kobayashi1, Hiroshi Otani1, Satoshi Ito1, Takanobu Sumino2, Takao Ishii2, Shu Saito3, Yasuaki Tokuhashi4, Kiyoshi Nakazono1 and Akira Murasawa1, 1Department of Rheumatology, Niigata Rheumatic Center, Shibata, Japan, 2Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kawaguchi Municipal Medical Center, Kawaguchi, Japan, 3Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Nihon University School of Medicine, Itabishi, Japan, 4Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Nihon University School of Medicine, Itabiashi, Japan

Meeting: 2017 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting

Date of first publication: September 18, 2017

Keywords: , , ,

Session Information

Date: Sunday, November 5, 2017

Title: Rheumatoid Arthritis – Clinical Aspects Poster I: Treatment Patterns and Response

Session Type: ACR Poster Session A

Session Time: 9:00AM-11:00AM

Background/Purpose: Forefoot deformities are commonly seen in patients with RA. It has been reported that nearly 90% of the patients have foot problems.1,2 Patients with RA often suffer from callosity or metatarsalgia in the rheumatoid foot. Forefoot surgery is often necessitated in cases of painful forefoot deformities in which conservative treatment proves to be insufficient.3,4 The purpose of this study is to investigate the differences in plantar pressure and background characteristics between the patients without scheduled forefoot surgery (group N) and the patients with scheduled forefoot surgery (group S), and to identify those characteristics that might be useful as indicators for conservative treatment.

Methods: Patients with RA were divided into 2 groups: group N and group S. The former consisted of 250 feet in 141 patients, and the latter consisted of 125 feet in 72 patients. DAS28, hallux valgus angle (HVA), the angle between the first and the second metatarsal bone (M1/2), the angle between the first and the fifth metatarsal bone (M1/5) and distribution of the site of callosity were evaluated as background characteristics. Distribution of peak pressure as plantar pressure was measured in 9 sections, including the first interphalangeal joint, the first through the fifth metatarsophalangeal joints (MTPJ), the medial and lateral midfoot, and the hindfoot. In addition, maximum peak pressure (MAXPP), minimum peak pressure (MINPP) and the difference value between MAXPP and MINPP (Δ pressure) were also measured. The MAXPP and MINPP indicates the highest and lowest peak pressure value found among the peak pressure measurements of all 9 sections, respectively. Finally, cut-off values were calculated from the receiver operating characteristic curve for each item which differed significantly between the 2 groups.

Results: In groups N and S, the mean DAS was 3.7 and 3.0 (p<0.001), the mean HVA was 19.4° and 34.5° (P<0.001), the mean M1/2 was 11.5° and 14.1° (P<0.001), and the mean M1/5 was 30.3° and 33.1°, respectively. Callosities were seen at the second and third MTPJ in half of all patients in group S. The mean peak pressure of group S at the first, second, third MTPJ, medial midfoot and hindfoot was significantly higher than that of group N (P <0.001, 0.05, 0.01,0.05 and 0.01). Significant differences between the 2 groups were also seen in MAXPP, MINPP and Δ pressure (P <0.001, 0.05 and 0.001). The cut-off values were 24.9° for HVA, 4.81 kg/cm2 for MAXPP and 4.51 kg/cm2 for Δ pressure. At the cut-off values, sensitivities were 76.0%, 69.6% and 67.4%, and specificities were 71.2%, 57.2% and 60.8%, respectively. Assessing HVA and MAXPP in combination, sensitivity was 46.4%, and specificity was 90.8%.

Conclusion: The combined assessment of HVA and MAXPP appeared to be useful as an indicator for conservative treatment of rheumatoid forefoot deformity. It is important to keep MAXPP under 4.81 kg/cm2 through drug treatment, orthotic treatment and physical treatment, in order to avoid forefoot surgery.

References:

  1. Vainio K. Ann Chir Gynaecol Fenn Suppl. 1956;45(1):1-107.
  2. Thould AK, et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 1966;25(3):220-8.
  3. Helal B, et al. J Bone Joint Surg Brit Vol. 1984;66(2):213-7.
  4. Niki H, et al. J Bone Joint Surg Brit Vol. 2010;92(3):380-6.
Disclosure: H. Lee, None; H. Ishikawa, None; A. Abe, None; Y. Nomura, None; E. Hasegawa, None; C. Takai, None; D. Kobayashi, None; H. Otani, None; S. Ito, None; T. Sumino, None; T. Ishii, None; S. Saito, None; Y. Tokuhashi, None; K. Nakazono, None; A. Murasawa, None.

To cite this abstract in AMA style:

Lee H, Ishikawa H, Abe A, Nomura Y, Hasegawa E, Takai C, Kobayashi D, Otani H, Ito S, Sumino T, Ishii T, Saito S, Tokuhashi Y, Nakazono K, Murasawa A. Baseline Values for Plantar Pressure and Background Characteristics As Indicators for the Limit of Conservative Treatment of Rheumatoid Forefoot Deformity [abstract]. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2017; 69 (suppl 10). https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/baseline-values-for-plantar-pressure-and-background-characteristics-as-indicators-for-the-limit-of-conservative-treatment-of-rheumatoid-forefoot-deformity/. Accessed .

« Back to 2017 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting

ACR Meeting Abstracts - https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/baseline-values-for-plantar-pressure-and-background-characteristics-as-indicators-for-the-limit-of-conservative-treatment-of-rheumatoid-forefoot-deformity/