An objective and standardized test of foot function: Normative values and validation in patients with reflex sympathetic dystrophy

Citation
Ma. Kemler et Hcw. De Vet, An objective and standardized test of foot function: Normative values and validation in patients with reflex sympathetic dystrophy, ARCH PHYS M, 81(10), 2000, pp. 1401-1407
Citations number
13
Categorie Soggetti
Ortopedics, Rehabilitation & Sport Medicine
Journal title
ARCHIVES OF PHYSICAL MEDICINE AND REHABILITATION
ISSN journal
00039993 → ACNP
Volume
81
Issue
10
Year of publication
2000
Pages
1401 - 1407
Database
ISI
SICI code
0003-9993(200010)81:10<1401:AOASTO>2.0.ZU;2-7
Abstract
Objective: To describe and obtain normative values for an objective and sta ndardized test of foot function, and to validate the test in patients with impaired function of 1 leg. Design: A series of 4 standardized and objectively measured subtests, repre senting common foot activities in daily living, was devised. Setting: University hospital. Participants: Normative values were obtained for 100 healthy patients betwe en 20 and 70 years of age. For validation purposes, the test was also perfo rmed by 20 patients diagnosed with reflex sympathetic dystrophy of 1 foot. Main Outcome Measures: Several basic aspects of individual foot function we re evaluated: (1) forward and backward shifting (FBS) of a foot panel; (2) lateral shifting (LS) of a foot panel; (3) alternately touching 2 bells (TB ); and (4) depressing a pedal (DP). (The tests were performed while seated; hence, they are applicable to patients unable to walk.) Comparison with re sults on a battery of other clinical function tests was assessed. Results: The intrarater and interrater reliabilities of the test were high (eg; intrarater correlation coefficients ranged from .74 to .93; interrater from .85 to .99). Results were influenced by sex and dominance, but were n ot influenced by height, weight, or shoe size. Age and leisure activities i nvolving foot function influenced 1 subtest only (depressing a pedal). Resu lts of the affected side in patients were higher than normative values alth ough, to a lesser extent, the same was true for the unaffected side. Footbo ard results did not correlate with results of other function tests, except myometry, suggesting that it provides additional information. In contrast t o the other tests, and like myometry, the footboard distinguished patients who were crutch dependent from those who were not. Conclusion: The footboard is a valuable addition to current tests for asses sing foot function.