Indian Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Register      Login

VOLUME 30 , ISSUE 2 ( April-June, 2019 ) > List of Articles

Original Article

Improvement Pattern of Talo-first Metatarsal Angle in Congenital Pes Planus Due to Conservative Rehabilitative Measures

Saumen Kumar De, Debangshu Bhakat, Rajesh Pramanik, Manomohan Biswas, Sunil Kumar Basu

Keywords : Faradic foot bath, Talo-first metatarsal angle,Congenital pes planus (flat foot)

Citation Information : De SK, Bhakat D, Pramanik R, Biswas M, Basu SK. Improvement Pattern of Talo-first Metatarsal Angle in Congenital Pes Planus Due to Conservative Rehabilitative Measures. Indian J Phy Med Rehab 2019; 30 (2):34-40.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10066-0038

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 00-06-2019

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2019; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Introduction: Pes planus is one of the commonest foot deformities during childhood. By measuring the talo-first metatarsal (TFM) angle radiologically, the condition can be classified as mild, moderate, and severe. This study is our humble attempt to put some light to assess the role of nonsurgical treatment approaches in cases of congenital pes planus with respect to the measurement of improvement in TFM angle. Materials and methods: This prospective randomized open label control trial was conducted in the Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Sambhu Nath Pandit Hospital, Lala Lajpat Rai Sarani, Kolkata, West Bengal, India, between December 2009 and November 2011, after obtaining clearance from the Institutional Ethical Committee clearance. Proper consent was taken from the legal guardian of the patient. Confirmed cases of congenital pes planus (flat foot) between 6 years and 18 years were included according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria and were being randomly subdivided into two groups. One group (group I) of patients received exercise (Ex) therapy, shoe modification (SM), and acetaminophen (paracetamol) SOS; and the other group of patients (group II) received Ex therapy, SM, electrical stimulation in the form of faradic foot bath (FFB), and acetaminophen (paracetamol) SOS; and after initial visit, these patients were followed up on 6th, 12th, 24th week, every time with respect to measurement of improvement in TFM angle. Results: Statistically significant improvement (with p value less than 0.05) was observed in group I, and similar type of observation was also found while analyzing the improvement in TFM angle among group II patients. But unfortunately, the comparative analysis by Student\'s unpaired t test of the numerical variables of groups I and II failed to show any statistically significant improvement pattern of TFM angle due to FFB itself. Conclusion: The TFM angle radiologically is a good assessment scale for measuring the outcome of conservative management in case congenital pes planus (flat foot).


PDF Share
  1. Jack EA. Naviculo-cuneiform fusion in the treatment of flatfoot. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1953;35-B(1):75–82. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.35B1.75.
  2. Adams JC, Hamblen DL. Pes planus (the leg, ankle, and foot). In: Adams JC, Hamblen DL, ed. Outline of Orthopaedics, 13th ed. London: Churchill Livingstone; 2001. pp. 519–528.
  3. Bresnahan P. Flatfoot deformity pathogenesis. A trilogy. Clin Podiatr Med Surg 2000;17(3):505–512.
  4. Hamanishi C. Congenital vertical talus: classification with 69 cases and new measurement system. J Pediatr Orthop 1984;4(3):318–326. DOI: 10.1097/01241398-198405000-00007.
  5. Younger AS, Sawatzky B, Dryden P. Radiographic assessment of adult flatfoot. Foot Ankle Int 2005;26(10):820–825. DOI: 10.1177/107110070502601006.
  6. Vora A, Haddad S. Congenital flatfoot: diagnosis and nonsurgical management; finding the underlying cause of deformity helps determine appropriate treatment. J Musculoskel Med 2003;20(2): 80–84.
  7. Weinstein SL. The Paediatric Foot. In: Weinstein SL, Buckwalter JA, ed. Turek's Orthopaedics Principles And Their Apllication, 6th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, A Wolter Kluwer Company, Indian Edition distributed by Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd, New Delhi; 2005. pp. 633–670.
  8. Vander Wilde R, Staheli LT, Chew DE, et al. Measurements on radiographs of the Foot in Normal Infants and Children. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1988;70(3):407–415. DOI: 10.2106/00004623-198870030-00013.
  9. Hosalkar HS, Spiegel DA, Davidson RS. The Foot and Toes. In: Kliegman RM, Behrman RE, Jenson HB, et al., ed. Nelson Textbook of Paediatrics, 18th ed. Philadelphia: Saunders Elsevier; 2007. vol. 2, ch 673. pp. 2776–2784.
  10. Rome K, Ashford RL, Evans A. Non-surgical interventions for paediatric pes planus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010;7:CD006311. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006311.pub2.
  11. Chen JP, Chung MJ, Wang MJ. Flatfoot prevalence and foot dimensions of 5- to 13-year-old children in Taiwan. Foot Ankle Int 2009;30(4):326–332. DOI: 10.3113/FAI.2009.0326.
  12. Sachithanandam V, Joseph B. The influence of footwear on the prevalence of flat foot. A survey of 1846 skeletally mature persons. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1995;77(2):254–257. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.77B2.7706341.
  13. Rose GK. Flat feet in children. Br Med J 1990;301(6764):1330–1331. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.301.6764.1330-c.
  14. Garcia RA, Martin JF, Carney VM, et al. Flexible flat feet in children: a real problem? Paediatrics 1999;103(6):e84. DOI: 10.1542/peds.103.6.e84.
  15. Lo HC, Chu WC, Wu WK, et al. Comparison of radiological measures for diagnosing flatfoot. Acta Radiol 2012;53(2):192–196. DOI: 10.1258/ar.2011.110387.
  16. Drennan JC. Congenital Vertical Talus. In: Drennan JC, ed. The Child's Foot and Ankle. New York, NY: Raven Press; 1992. pp. 155–168.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.