Comparative analysis of the validity of goniometric, inclinometric, and radiographic methods to measure ankle joint dorsiflexion

Authors

  • I.V. Kucher MNPE “Irpin Central City Hospital”, Irpin, Ukraine

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22141/1608-1706.6.22.2021.249598

Keywords:

ankle joint, goniometry, inclinometric method

Abstract

Background. The search for an optimal method to assess the amplitude of ankle joint dorsiflexion remains topical for scientific discussions. The purpose of the research was to analyze the validity of goniometric and inclinometric methods for measuring the scope of ankle joint (AJ) dorsiflexion compared to radiological data. Materials and methods. The research included 25 healthy and physically active people (50 ankle joints), 18 men and 7 women with an average age of 25.8 ± 5.2 years; their mean body mass index was 25.01 ± 5.01 kg/m2. Ankle dorsiflexion measures were obtained in a weight-bearing lunge position using a double-plane goniometer and inclinometer, then compared with X-ray data. The measurement results were evaluated by descriptive statistics. Results. Mean values of AJ dorsiflexion obtained with a double-plane goniometer were 37.62 ± 5.56°; with an inclinometer — 40.61 ± 5.15°; radiological results — 23.69 ± 7.25°. Their difference was significant (p < 0.001). The mean variability index for the radiological method was 0.31 prevailing over goniometric (0.15) and inclinometric (0.13) methods (p < 0.001). X-ray ima-ging of a weight-bearing AJ at its maximum dorsiflexion raises the indicator of a talus-first metatarsal angle. Conclusions. The values of the dorsiflexion angle parameters of an AJ, measured using goniometric and inclinometric methods, significantly exceed those obtained by X-ray imaging. Higher variation index for radiological imaging demonstrates better reproducibility of inclinometry and goniometry when evaluating AJ dorsiflexion. A weight-bearing AJ radiogram at maximum extended position demonstrates an increase in a talus-first metatarsal angle compared to normal values that should be considered when interpreting the results of X-ray imaging of an AJ dorsiflexion.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Konor MM, Morton S, Eckerson JM, Grindstaff TL. Reliability of three measures of ankle dorsiflexion range of motion. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2012 Jun;7(3):279-87. PMID: 22666642

Gatt A, Chockalingam N. Clinical assessment of ankle joint dorsiflexion: a review of measurement techniques. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2011 Jan-Feb;101(1):59-69. DOI: 10.7547/1010059

Smith MD, Lee D, Russell T, Matthews M, MacDonald D, Vicenzino B. How much does the talocrural joint contribute to ankle dorsiflexion range of motion during the weight-bearing lunge test? A cross-sectional radiographic validity study. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2019 Dec;49(12):934-941. DOI: 10.2519/jospt.2019.8697

Coetzee JC, Castro MD. Accurate measurement of ankle range of motion after total ankle arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004 Jul;(424):27-31. DOI: 10.1097/01.blo.0000132180.69464.84

Worsley PR, Conington C, Stuart H, Patterson A, Bader DL. A randomised cross over study to evaluate the performance of a novel ankle dorsiflexion measurement device for novice users. J Foot Ankle Res. 2018 Jul 31;11:45. DOI: 10.1186/s13047-018-0286-x

Vohralik SL, Bowen AR, Burns J, Hiller CE, Nightingale EJ. Reliability and validity of a smartphone app to measure joint range. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2015 Apr;94(4):325-30. DOI: 10.1097/PHM.0000000000000221

Banwell HA, Uden H, Marshall N, Altmann C, Williams CM. The iPhone Measure app level function as a measuring device for the weight bearing lunge test in adults: a reliability study. J Foot Ankle Res. 2019 Jul 9;12:37. DOI: 10.1186/s13047-019-0347-9

Zunko H, Vauhnik R. Reliability of the weight-bearing ankle dorsiflexion range of motion measurement using a smartphone goniometer application. PeerJ. 2021 Sep 22;9:e11977. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.11977

Alawna MA, Unver BH, Yuksel EO. The reliability of a smartphone goniometer application compared with a traditional goniometer for measuring ankle joint range of motion. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2019 Jan;109(1):22-29. DOI: 10.7547/16-128

Williams CM, Caserta AJ, Haines TP. The TiltMeter app is a novel and accurate measurement tool for the weight bearing lunge test. J Sci Med Sport. 2013 Sep;16(5):392-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsams.2013.02.001

Keogh JWL, Cox A, Anderson S, Liew B, Olsen A, Schram B, Furness J. Reliability and validity of clinically accessible smartphone applications to measure joint range of motion: A systematic review. PLoS One. 2019 May 8;14(5):e0215806. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0215806

Talmage JB, Blaisdell J. Range of Motion: AMA Guides, Sixth Edition. Guides Newsletter [Internet]. 2015 May 1;20(3):3–5. DOI: 10.1001/amaguidesnewsletters.2015.MayJun01

Norkin CC, White DJ. Measurement of joint motion: a guide to goniometry. 5th ed. FA Davis Company; 2016. 571 p.

Cox RW, Martinez RE, Baker RT, Warren L. Validity of a smartphone application for measuring ankle plantar flexion. J Sport Rehabil. 2018 May 1;27(3). DOI: 10.1123/jsr.2017-0143

Awatani T, Enoki T, Morikita I. Inter-rater reliability and validity of angle measurements using smartphone applications for weight-bearing ankle dorsiflexion range of motion measurements. Phys Ther Sport. 2018 Nov;34:113-120. DOI: 10.1016/j.ptsp.2018.09.002

Турчин ОА, Лазаренко ГМ, Лябах АП. Динаміка обсягу рухів у гомілковостопному суглобі під впливом вправ на розтягнення у пацієнтів із підошовним фасціїтом. Вісник ортопедії, травматології та протезування. 2018;(3):64–69.

DiGiovanni CW, Kuo R, Tejwani N, Price R, Hansen ST Jr, Cziernecki J, Sangeorzan BJ. Isolated gastrocnemius tightness. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002 Jun;84(6):962-70. DOI: 10.2106/00004623-200206000-00010

Dudziński K, Mulsson M, Cabak A. The effect of limitation in ankle dorsiflexion on knee joint function. A pilot study. Ortop Traumatol Rehabil. 2013 Mar-Apr;15(2):159-68. DOI: 10.5604/15093492.1045944

Powden CJ, Hoch JM, Hoch MC. Reliability and minimal detectable change of the weight-bearing lunge test: A systematic review. Man Ther. 2015 Aug;20(4):524-32. DOI: 10.1016/j.math.2015.01.004

Moseley AM, Crosbie J, Adams R. Normative data for passive ankle plantarflexion--dorsiflexion flexibility. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2001 Jul;16(6):514-21. DOI: 10.1016/s0268-0033(01)00030-4

Soucie JM, Wang C, Forsyth A, Funk S, Denny M, Roach KE, Boone D; Hemophilia Treatment Center Network. Range of motion measurements: reference values and a database for comparison studies. Haemophilia. 2011 May;17(3):500-7. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2516.2010.02399.x

Kumar S, Sharma R, Gulati D, Dhammi IK, Aggarwal AN. Normal range of motion of hip and ankle in Indian population. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2011;45(6):421-4. DOI: 10.3944/AOTT.2011.2612

Dayton P, Feilmeier M, Parker K, Otti R, Reimer R, Kauwe M, Eisenschink J, Wolfe J. Experimental comparison of the clinical measurement of ankle joint dorsiflexion and radiographic tibiotalar position. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2017 Sep-Oct;56(5):1036-1040. DOI: 10.1053/j.jfas.2017.05.008

Cady K, De Ste Croix M, Deighan M. Back foot influence on dorsiflexion using three different positions of the weight bearing lunge test. Phys Ther Sport. 2021 Jan;47:1-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.ptsp.2020.10.005

Russell JA, Shave RM, Kruse DW, Koutedakis Y, Wyon MA. Ankle and foot contributions to extreme plantar- and dorsiflexion in female ballet dancers. Foot Ankle Int. 2011 Feb;32(2):183-8. DOI: 10.3113/FAI.2011.0183

Kido M, Ikoma K, Ikeda R, Hosokawa T, Hara Y, Imai K, Maki M, Ohashi S, Mikami Y, Kubo T. Reproducibility of radiographic methods for assessing longitudinal tarsal axes: Part 1: Consecutive case study. Foot (Edinb). 2019 Sep;40:1-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.foot.2019.03.003

Lamm BM, Stasko PA, Gesheff MG, Bhave A. Normal foot and ankle radiographic angles, measurements, and reference points. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2016 Sep-Oct;55(5):991-8. DOI: 10.1053/j.jfas.2016.05.005

Лябах АП. Клінічна діагностика деформацій стопи. Київ: ЗАТ «Алант ЮЕмСі; 2003. 110 с.

Broos M, Berardo S, Dobbe JGG, Maas M, Streekstra GJ, Wellenberg RHH. Geometric 3D analyses of the foot and ankle using weight-bearing and non weight-bearing cone-beam CT images: The new standard? Eur J Radiol. 2021 May;138:109674. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2021.109674

Shelton TJ, Singh S, Bent Robinson E, Nardo L, Escobedo E, Jackson L, Kreulen CD, Giza E. The influence of percentage weight-bearing on foot radiographs. Foot Ankle Spec. 2019 Aug;12(4):363-369. DOI: 10.1177/1938640018810412

Published

2022-01-21

How to Cite

Kucher, I. (2022). Comparative analysis of the validity of goniometric, inclinometric, and radiographic methods to measure ankle joint dorsiflexion. TRAUMA, 22(6), 26–31. https://doi.org/10.22141/1608-1706.6.22.2021.249598

Issue

Section

Original Researches