Skip to content

Advertisement

Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

The identification and appraisal of assessment tools used to evaluate metatarsus adductus: a systematic review of their measurement properties

Journal of Foot and Ankle Research201811:25

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13047-018-0268-z

Received: 13 October 2017

Accepted: 22 May 2018

Published: 1 June 2018

Abstract

Background

Metatarsus adductus is the most common congenital foot deformity in newborns. It involves adduction of the metatarsals at the Lisfranc joint. A systematic literature review was conducted to investigate the following question: What tools are used to identify and quantify metatarsus adductus and how reliable, valid and responsive are they?

Methods

The following electronic databases were searched for studies describing tools for the identification and quantification of metatarsus adductus in adults and children published from inception to June 2016: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science and AMED. Two researchers initially searched all articles by screening titles and abstracts. If there was any doubt as to an article’s eligibility, the full text paper was retrieved. Reference lists and citations of all retained studies were examined in an attempt to locate further studies. Articles were excluded if they were not in English or described other congenital foot conditions that did not include metatarsus adductus. Studies included in the review reporting measurement properties of measurement tools were critically appraised using the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) critical appraisal tool.

Results

There were 282 articles screened by title and abstract and 28 articles screened from full text. Fifteen articles were included and nine had data that were extractable for appraisal using the COSMIN critical appraisal tool. Techniques to measure metatarsus adductus included the heel bisector method, photocopies, ultrasound, footprints, dynamic foot pressure and radiographs. There was a paucity of quality data reporting the reliability, validity or responsiveness for measuring metatarsus adductus. Several radiographic angles showed good reliability (intraclass correlation (ICC) – 0.84, 0.97) in adults during pre-operative planning.

Conclusion

There have been multiple assessment techniques proposed for quantification of metatarsus adductus, but there is paucity of reliability, validity or responsiveness to measurement data about these techniques, especially in relation to the paediatric population. Further consideration of measurement testing is required to determine if the most common non-radiographic measures of metatarsus adductus are acceptable for clinical use.

Keywords

Metatarsus adductusAssessmentPaediatricChild

Background

Metatarsus adductus is the most common congenital foot deformity in newborns with a reported prevalence of one to two cases per 1000 births [1]. The deformity appears as an adduction or medial deviation of the forefoot at the tarsometatarsal joints (Lisfranc joint) with associated soft tissue contractures that may lead to osseous changes over time [24]. The metatarsals are deviated medially in the transverse plane resulting in a convex lateral border of the foot and a prominent styloid process [3, 5, 6]. Metatarsus adductus can be differentiated from other congenital foot conditions as it is purely a forefoot condition that does not involve the hindfoot unlike talipes equinovarus or skewfoot [3]. The exact aetiology of metatarsus adductus is unknown, however, it has been suggested that increased intrauterine pressure, osseous abnormality and abnormal muscle attachments may be potential causes [712]. Between 87 and 90% of flexible metatarsus adductus cases resolve spontaneously without the need for further treatment [10, 11, 13, 14].

There is inconclusive evidence on the long term effect of metatarsus adductus on the adult foot [15]. Some authors propose that if metatarsus adductus persists into adulthood it can lead to the development of hallux valgus, skewfoot or hammer toes, intoeing, increased medial tibial torsion, fifth metatarsal stress fractures, difficulty fitting into shoes and can contribute to increased falling or tripping later in life [7, 12, 1618].

Metatarsus adductus is commonly diagnosed according to the presence and severity of the deformity and the degree of flexibility using the Bleck manual assessment [3, 4, 1921]. Clinically, assessments are used to determine if treatment is required, the method of treatment, monitoring progress and to ensure the child’s foot has returned to a normal foot alignment post intervention [22]. Whilst there are numerous assessment techniques published to quantify the presence of metatarsus adductus, there is little research assessing validity, reliability or responsiveness of these measures. This is potentially problematic for clinicians, as quantification of the condition drives treatment and management decisions [15].

There have been several assessment techniques proposed in the literature for the assessment of the deformity to quantify the severity. In 1983, Bleck created a visual assessment called the ‘heel bisector method’. It involves firstly visually identifying the severity of the deformity and categorising it as mild, moderate or severe according to the heel bisector and secondly making a classification of flexibility as fully flexible, partially flexible or severe. This simple method requires minimal time for both the clinician and patient and as it was observation based, and cost effective [3]. This measure has been modified and used in numerous studies since its development and continues to be clinically utilised to reassure parents that their child’s foot position will resolve with time or to drive treatment initiation [4, 19, 20].

Other assessment methods described within the literature to grade severity include a multitude of radiographic angles [2325], photocopies of the child’s foot [19] and the V-finger test [16, 17]. Radiographs may be considered time consuming and unnecessary given potential risk to the child. Photocopying the child’s foot poses potential risk due to glass breakage. Recent studies suggest the use of ultrasound as a measurement technique as it allows for the imaging of cartilaginous structures [21].

As previously discussed, many treatment options are initiated based on the observed presence of deformity, to measure severity and flexibility of the condition. Therefore if the tool used to measure these components was not adequate, this has implications for the initiation of treatment where needed, or potentially unnecessary treatment leading to a potential poor prognosis for that child. [16]. The primary aim of this systematic review was to identify, and where possible, appraise the measurement properties of all known methods for identifying the severity and/or flexibility of metatarsus adductus.

Methods

Search strategy

The PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews were followed [26]. The question and search terms were developed using the broad concepts of the PICO (Population, Intervention Comparison and Outcomes) model [27]. The systematic review was registered with Prospero (CRD42016039622). The following electronic databases were searched for studies describing assessment tools for the identification and quantification of metatarsus adductus in adults and children published from inception to June 2016: Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science and AMED. Broad MeSH terms and keywords were used to identify the articles of interest (e.g. Metatarsus adductus) and quantification terminology (e.g. measure, assess). Additional file 1 contains the full search terms and truncation used within each database. Citation chaining was undertaken to identify any articles that may have been missed in the initial search strategy. It involved employing a forward and backward searching strategy using Google Scholar citations to identify relevant articles using a single paper as a starting point which creates a ‘chain’ of references linked backward and forward from the original article. The inclusion and exclusion criteria used for search strategy is listed in Table 1.
Table 1

Inclusion and exclusion criteria for articles included in the systematic review

Inclusion Criteria:

Exclusion Criteria:

• Studies describing a tool measuring metatarsus adductus.

• Studies describing congenital foot deformities with no inclusion of metatarsus adductus These included but were not limited to: skewfoot, congenital talipes equinovarus, metatarsus primus varus, congenital metatarsus varus or serpentine foot.

• Studies reporting any measurement properties of measurement tools for assessing metatarsus adductus as defined by the COSMIN tool.

• All study designs

• Studies based on both adults and children

• Non-English publications.

• Grey literature

Two researchers (NM & CMW) initially screened the title and abstract of all articles. If there was any doubt as to an article’s eligibility, the full text paper was retrieved. Articles were imported into Covidence for screening [28]. The full text of included study abstracts were independently screened against the inclusion criteria by two reviewers (NM & EW). Any disagreement was resolved by discussion or through consultation with the third author. Figure 1 displays the search process.
Figure 1
Fig. 1

PRISMA flow of article inclusion

Data extraction

Data were extracted by the first author and where there were queries, these were resolved with all authors. Data extracted included the study design, population, assessment measure/description, sample size, reliability (inter/intra rater reliability), statistical quality, available domains of the COSMIN and author derived measurement [29].

Critical appraisal of study methodology quality

Where studies reported measurement properties, they were critically appraised using the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) critical appraisal tool [29]. The COSMIN was developed in an international Delphi study to improve the selection of health measurement instruments [29]. This was found to have adequate content validity [30]. COSMIN assessed the internal consistency, reliability, measurement error, hypothesis testing, content and structural validity, responsiveness and interpretability of a measurement [31]. Articles chosen for inclusion in the synthesis were subject to appraisal by two independent reviewers.

The COSMIN may be utilised as a modular tool and used to assess the quality of measurement based studies including patient reported outcome measures, scales and simple measures such as those appraised in this present study. Therefore only relevant parts of the checklist were used for quality evaluation of measurements [29] included: box B (reliability), D (content validity), H (criterion validity) and I (responsiveness). For example, if the study reported on the measurement properties involving reliability then box B was the only part of the COSMIN completed [29]. COSMIN also requires generalizability to be assigned for each measure. The results of these modules were then assessed using a 4 point scale to allow calculation of the overall methodological quality score for each study. This methodological quality score per box was obtained by assigning the lowest rating of any item in a box (‘worse score counts’).

Results

Included studies

There were 15 studies included in this review. Of these 15 articles, nine reported on measurement properties that were able to be critically appraised for quality using the COSMIN and six reported methods of measurement that were unable to be appraised. Table 2 provides a description of the 15 included studies. A meta-analysis was not performed as studies were heterogeneous. Each study varied in terms of participant age, country the study was conducted, gender and measurement tool used. Out of the 15 studies, two studies were conducted on an adult population, eight studies had a paediatric population and five studies did not mention age. The majority of studies were cohort study designs (Table 2). There were six methods of measurement described to assess the severity or flexibility of metatarsus adductus (Table 3).
Table 2

Studies included within review

Primary Author

Study Design

Country

Sample Size

Gender

Male/ Female

Age (Age (SD), Range)

Measure

Inclusion Criteria

Exclusion Criteria

Data collection method

Tool developed by author:

Engel [35]

Retrospective cohort

USA

571 radiographs

Not stated

Not stated

1. Traditional metatarsus adductus angle (intersection of longitudinal axis of lesser tarsus with bisector of second metatarsal)

2. Simplified metatarsus angle (intersection of longitudinal bisector of 2nd metatarsal and medial cuneiform)

Foot radiographs from Oxford hospital.

Not stated

Weight-bearing foot radiographs

Yes

Dawoodi [38]

Literature review

United Kingdom

Not stated

Not stated

Not stated

1. Traditional metatarsus adductus angle (intersection of longitudinal axis of lesser tarsus with bisector of second metatarsal)

2. Engel’s angle (bisection of middle cuneiform with longitudinal axis of second metatarsal)

3. Modified Engel’s angle using the base of the middle cuneiform as a reference line

Not stated

Not stated

Not stated

No

Dawoodi [32]

Validation study

United Kingdom

130 patients

(50 randomly selected radiographs)

119/14

50.6 (15.4) years,

14–80 years

1. Sgarlarto’s angle/traditional metatarsus adductus angle (angle between 2nd metatarsal and longitudinal axis of the lesser tarsus using 4th metatarso-cuboid joint as reference)

2. Rearfoot-2nd meta-tarsal angle

3. Engel’s angle (bisection of middle cuneiform with longitudinal axis of second metatarsal)

4. Modified Engel’s angle using the base of the middle cuneiform as a reference line

Symptomatic hallux abductovalgus, listed for corrective surgery

Evidence of trauma,

Previous surgery

Dorsoplantar radiographic views.

No

French [34]

Non-Controlled Trial

USA

42 (68 ft)

29/13

9.1 months

1–3 years

1. Lateral calcaneal 5th Metatarsal angle (line representing the lateral aspect of calcaneus and the longitudinal bisector of the fifth metatarsal)

2. Inter-metatarsal angle (angle formed by longitudinal bisectors of 1st and 2nd metatarsals)

3. Talus first metatarsal angle (longitudinal bisectors of talus and the first metatarsals)

4. Talocalcaneal angle (Kite’s angle) (longitudinal bisector of the talus and the calcaneus)

5. First metatarsal fifth metatarsal angle (angle formed by longitudinal bisection of 1st and 5th metatarsals)

6. Talocaneal angle lateral view (bisection of talus and a line representing inferior aspect of the calcaneus)

Clinical observation of metatarsus adductus

Not stated

AP and lateral radiographs

First metatarsal -5th metatarsal angle only was author driven.

Hutchinson [39]

Expert Opinion

USA

Not stated

Not stated

Not stated

Describes Kite’s talocalcaneal angle and calcaneal metatarsal angle without labeling of method

Not applicable

Not applicable

Radiographs

No

Widhe [13]

Prospective cohort

Sweden

2, 401

Not stated

0–16 years

Dynamic foot pressure and gait analysis

Not specifically stated.

Not stated

EMED dynamometric system

No

Knörr [4]

Prospective cohort

Spain

26 (34 ft)

16/10

5.7 years,

3–8.5 years

1. Heel bisector method (undescribed)

2. First cuneiform metatarsal angle (medial angulation of first cuneometatarsal joint)

3. Metatarsal-metaphyseal angle (metatarsal metaphyseal incurvation)

Rigid Metatarsus adductus scheduled for surgery

Not stated

Weight bearing radiographs

No

Miron [21]

Expert Opinion

Canada

N/A

Not stated

Not stated

Lateral displacement of the medial (first) cuneiform over the navicular as the single feature.

Not applicable

Not applicable

Ultrasonography

Yes

Lepow [25]

Retrospective cohort

USA

15

7/8

6 months,

(2–15 months)

1. Traditional metatarsus adductus angle (intersection of longitudinal axis of lesser tarsus with bisector of second metatarsal).

Diagnosed with metatarsus adductus

No treatment

No radiography

WB AP radiographs

No

Herzenberg [20]

Prospective cohort

USA

27 (43 ft)

Not stated

3–9 months.

1. Footprints analysed using modification of Bleck’s heel bisector method. A transparent template with longitudinal bisector was applied over footprint and graded

2. Talocalcaneal angle (Kite’s angle) (longitudinal bisector of the talus and the calcaneus)

<  9 months, Failed program of parent stretching

Children older than 9 months of age

Footprints

Yes

Smith [19]

Expert Opinion

USA

Not applicable

Not applicable

Not applicable

Heel bisector drawn onto photocopy of a child’s footprint. A second copy in maximum correction for quantification of flexibility

N/A

N/A

Photocopied footprint

Yes

Dominguez [33]

Retrospective cohort

Spain

121 (20 randomly selected radiographs)

106/103

23.88 years (2.85),

20–29 years

Metatarsus adductus angle - cuboid and the 4th metatarsal and cuboid and the 5th metatarsal

>  20 years

No history of foot surgery or alteration in plantar pressures distribution

Disease or trauma causing foot pathology,

pain, toe deformities

Dorsoplantar radiographs weight bearing

No

Cook [23]

Retrospective cohort

USA

40 ft

Not stated

9 weeks – 9 months

Berg classification - talus-first metatarsal deviation, calcaneal line to cuboid, AP talocalcaneal line, lateral talocalcaneal angle

Metatarsus adductus diagnosis on clinical examination

Poor quality radiograph

Radiographs

no

Berg [2]

Prospective cohort

USA

84

50/34

2.5 years

2.2–3.8

Talocalcaneal angle (Kite’s angle) (longitudinal bisector of the talus and the calcaneus)

Stretches failed to resolve metarasus adductus

Neurological conditions

AP weight-bearing radiographs

Yes

Bleck [3]

Retrospective cohort

USA

160

93/67

5–36 months

Heel bisector method:

Severity measure: The heel bisector centres of the hindfoot plantar surface. Line crosses between the 2nd and 3rd toes = normal, through the 3rd toe (mild deformity), between 3rd and 4th toes (moderate), between 4th and 5th toes (severe deformity).

Flexibility measure: Abduction beyond the midline heel bisector (mild classification), only to the midline (partially flexible), no abduction possible (severe)

Metatarsus adductus diagnosis on clinical examination

Dynamic hallux varus, metatarsus primus varus or serpentine foot.

Observation and physical assessment

Yes

*N/A Not applicable

Table 3

Identified measurement techniques for measuring metatarsus adductus

Type of measure:

Frequency of measure

n = 15

Visual – heel bisector method [3, 4, 1921, 38]

6 (40%)

Radiographs [2, 4, 20, 23, 25, 3235, 38, 39]

11 (73%)

Ultrasound [21]

1 (7%)

Photocopier [19]

1 (7%)

Footprints [20]

1 (7%)

Dynamic foot pressure and gait analysis [13]

1 (7%)

Reliability of measures employed to quantify metatarsus adductus

There were three studies assessing the reliability of three different individual radiographic angles to assess metatarsus adductus [23, 32, 33]. These measures (Table 3) included the traditional and modified metatarsus adductus angle, the Engel and/or modified Engel angles and the rearfoot-second metatarsal angle [32, 33]. Only radiological measures reported any intra-rater reliability intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). These ranged from 0.85–0.97 and the inter-rater reliability ICC ranged from 0.84–0.972 [32, 33] (Table 4).
Table 4

Intra and inter-rater reliability of radiographic angles used to assess metatarsus adductus

Radiographic angles:

Description of measurement:

Study

Intra-rater ICC:

Inter-rater ICC:

Traditional metatarsus adductus angle (5th)

Angle between the second metatarsal and longitudinal axis of the lesser tarsus using the fifth metatarso-cuboid joint as a reference

[32]

0.92

0.87

[33]

0.970

0.962

Modified metatarsus adductus angle (4th)

Angle between the second metatarsal and longitudinal axis of the lesser tarsus using the forth metatarso-cuboid joint as a reference

[38]

0.91

0.93

[33]

0.962

0.972

Rearfoot-2nd metatarsal angle

Angle between the longitudinal bisection of the second metatarsal bone and the line parallel to the lateral border of the calcaneum

[32]

0.85

0.87

Engel’s angle

Angle between the longitudinal axis of the middle cuneiform and the longitudinal axis of the second metatarsal

[32]

0.90

0.84

Modified Engel

Angle between the longitudinal axis of the second metatarsal and a line perpendicular to the proximal articular surface of the middle cuneiform and the angle between the rearfoot reference line (line parallel to the lateral border of the calcaneum) and the longitudinal axis of the second metatarsal

[32]

0.92

0.91

The Berg Classification system

Four radiographic measurements that categorises foot deformities into; metatarsus adductus, complex metatarsus adductus, simple skewfoot and complex skewfoot

This includes the following: talus-first metatarsal deviation, calcaneal line to cuboid, AP talocalcaneal line, lateral talocalcaneal angle

[23]

Average intra-rater consistency: 74% (ranged from 66.7–81%).

Average inter-rater consistency: 64% (ranged from 61.9–66.7%).

The Berg’s classification system reported diagnostic agreement ranging from 66.7–81% for inter-rater consistency and 61.9–66.7% for intra-rater consistency. During reliability testing, authors removed five radiographs that produced high disagreement between reviewers from results, the administrations were not independent and there was no time interval between reviewing the images.

Methodology quality of the included studies

The COSMIN criterion was applied to the nine studies reporting measurement properties to determine their methodological quality (Table 5). Three reported the reliability of the measure and assessed as fair to good methodological quality [23, 32, 33]. One included reported content validity which rated poorly for methodological quality [34], one included criterion validity which also rated poorly for methodological quality [35]. There were five of the nine included studies assessed for responsiveness. All five studies were rated poorly for methodological properties relating to responsiveness according to the COSMIN criterion [2, 4, 20, 25, 34]. There were no studies reporting specific data on sensitivity or specificity in any included research.
Table 5

COSMIN critical appraisal tool used for studies that could be analysed for their measurement properties

Study:

Measurement tool:

Author driven:

Reliability (B):

Content Validity (D):

Criterion Validity (H):

Responsiveness (I):

Berg et al. [2]

Radiographs: Berg classification system

Yes

n/a

n/a

n/a

Poor

Cook et al. [23]

Radiographs: Berg classification system

No

Poor

n/a

n/a

n/a

Dawoodi et al. [32]

Radiographs: metatarsal angle (4th), modified metatarsal angle (5th), rearfoot – 2nd metatarsal angle, Engel’s Angle, modified Engel’s angle.

No

Good

n/a

n/a

n/a

Dominguez et al. [33]

Radiographs: Traditional metatarsus adductus angle (cuboid and the 4th metatarsal as reference), modified metatarsus adductus angle (cuboid and the 5th metatarsal).

No

Fair

n/a

n/a

n/a

Engel, et al. [35]

Radiographs: Traditional metatarsus adductus angle and the modified metatarsus adductus angle

Modified metatarsus adductus angle only.

n/a

n/a

Fair

n/a

French, et al. [34]

Radiographs: Lateral calcaneal 5th metatarsal angle, inter-metatarsal angle, talus first metatarsal angle, talocalcaneal angle (Kite’s angle), first metatarsal fifth metatarsal angle, talocaneal angle (lateral view).

First-metatarsal fifth-metatarsal angle was author driven. All other angles were not.

n/a

Poor

n/a

Poor

Herzenberg et al. [20]

Footprints analysed using a modified version of Bleck’s measurement.

Yes

n/a

n/a

n/a

Poor

Knörr et al. [4]

Radiographs: First cuneiform metatarsal angle, metatarsal-metaphyseal angle.

No

n/a

n/a

n/a

Poor

Lepow et al. [25]

Radiographs: Paediatric metatarsus adductus angle

Yes

n/a

n/a

n/a

Poor

There were several other measurement techniques identified for assessing metatarsus adductus. These were unable to be critically appraised using the COSMIN due to a lack of reported measurement properties. These measures included Bleck’s heel bisector method [3], photocopying the child’s foot [19], ultrasound [21], and dynamic foot pressure [13].

Discussion

Metatarsus adductus has been described as the most common congenital foot deformity presenting in newborns [1]. While this condition is self limiting in the vast majority of cases, there is time when treatment is warranted and guided by measurements assessed within this review. Several measurement techniques are reported for assessment of this condition, but there was limited high quality evidence supporting the measurement properties of many of these measurements.

Radiographic angles had high levels of reliability for measuring metatarsus adductus in adults when taken during pre-operative planning. However, these studies should be interpreted with caution as they were conducted with adult participants with no history of metatarsus adductus. Therefore, results may not be transferable to the paediatric population. Furthermore, radiographs measure and quantify the severity of metatarsus adductus but do not take into account the flexibility of the condition. There is little benefit for supporting using this measurement technique in children unless surgical management is recommended [16, 36, 37]. One study assessed radiographic angles in children however, the author developed their own rating tool and it scored poorly for quality on the COSMIN for both content validity and responsiveness [34].

Metatarsus adductus is primarily identified and treated conservatively in the paediatric population where the benefits and risks of measurement technique must be considered [15]. Radiographs and the associated angles measure the osseous deviation and change. In the younger population, the lack of tarsal bone ossification does not allow many of these angles to be easily calculated [21]. The radiographic angles with the highest reliability [32, 33] identified in this review were calculated and reliant on osseous structures that appear after the age of five [38]. Ultrasonography was utilised as a dynamic imaging modality for quantification of metatarsus adductus in infants as it allows for the imaging of the cartilaginous structures. It also differentiates between metatarsus adductus and skewfoot, as in metatarsus adductus the medial cuneiform will be displaced laterally over the navicular [21]. Whilst this is a new imaging modality, no studies have assessed the measurement properties of this method. This has the potential to be a costly measurement technique requiring additional skills by clinicians for interpretation, however, would negate the radiation exposure that radiographs impose.

The Bleck’s heel bisector method was the most frequently reported measurement for assessing metatarsus adductus in the paediatric population. It is the measure that appears most frequently within studies relating to metatarsus adductus [3, 4, 1921, 38]. The Bleck measurement was also recently used to assess the treatment outcome of stretching for metatarsus adductus versus no treatment [22]. This simple measure requires a short time for the clinician to assess both any flexibility and severity of the adduction deformity. As this measure is a manual assessment that requires no equipment, it is considered simple and is less costly than radiological measurement. No studies have assessed the measurement properties of this measurement. Due to the commonality of this measure and clinical use to guide treatment and success of treatment, further research should be considered to determine the measurement properties of this assessment.

There are a number of limitations within this review that impact findings and recommendations. English only articles were included and due to limited and varied data extracted, no meta-analysis was performed. A broader search encompassing grey literature may have found additional papers reporting the quality of measures. They may have included hospital or department protocols or guidelines. Future studies should consider encompassing these within the review. The generalisability of radiological reliability findings to the paediatric population was not possible due to osseous development and the methodology of measure development did not always include the paediatric population.

Sensitivity and specificity was not specifically mentioned in any of the measurement tools analysed in this review which impacted on the responsiveness criterion of the COSMIN. This also limited the number of items that could be selected from the COSMIN appraisal tool and used to analyse each study. Additionally, there was no cost-benefit analysis of any of the measures found within the literature.

Conclusion

There have been multiple assessment techniques proposed for quantification of metatarsus adductus but there is a paucity of quality data on reliability, validity or responsiveness of these techniques, especially in relation to the paediatric population. There have been several radiographic measures shown to have good reliability in adult participants and are used for surgical guidance. Further research is required to determine if simple measures commonly guiding reassurance or implementation of conservative treatment are a reliable way of measuring metatarsus adductus in the paediatric population.

Abbreviations

COSMIN: 

Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments

ICC: 

Intraclass correlation coefficient

IRT: 

Item response theory

Declarations

Funding

CMW is supported by a National Health and Medical Research early career health professional research fellowship.

Availability of data and materials

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the study. All relevant data has been included within the review.

Authors’ contributions

NM, EW and CMW conceived and designed this systematic review, NM and CMW contributed to the screening and processing of articles, EW and NM critically appraised the data, NM drafted the manuscript, all authors reviewed critically the final manuscript and approved for submission.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
University of South Australia, School of Health Science, Adelaide, Australia
(2)
Department of Physiotherapy, Monash University, Frankston, Australia
(3)
Peninsula Health, Allied Health, Frankston, Australia

References

  1. Dietz F: Intoeing - fact, fiction and opinion. Am Fam Physician 1994, 50:1249–1259.Google Scholar
  2. Berg EE. A reappraisal of metatarsus adductus and skewfoot. J Bone Joint Surg – Ser A. 1986;68:1185–96.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Bleck EE. METATARSUS ADDUCTUS - CLASSIFICATION AND RELATIONSHIP TO OUTCOMES OF TREATMENT. J Pediatr Orthop. 1983;3:2–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Knörr J, Soldado F, Pham TT, Torres A, Cahuzac JP, De Gauzy JS. Percutaneous correction of persistent severe metatarsus adductus in children. J Pediatr Orthop. 2014;34:447–50.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Ponseti IB,J. Congenital metatarsus adductus: the results of treatment. J Bone Joint Surg – Am Vol. 1966;48:702–11.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Galluzzo AJ, Hugar DW. Congenital metatarsus adductus: clinical evaluation and treatment. J Foot Surg. 1979;18:16–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Sass P, Hassan G. Lower extremity abnormalities in children. Am Fam Physician. 2003;68:461–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Morcuende JAPI. Congenital metatarsus adductus in early human fetal development: a histologic study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996;333:261–266.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Robb J. Intoeing and out-toeing gait. In: Paediatric orthopaedic diagnosis: asking the right questions. India: Springer; 2015. p. 207–20.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Geddis C, Jones S. Foot disorders in childhood. Surgery. 2011;29:187–90.Google Scholar
  11. Hart ES, Grottkau BE, Rebello GN, Albright MB. The newborn foot: diagnosis and management of common conditions. Orthop Nurs. 2005;24:313–21. quiz 322-313PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Wan SC. Metatarsus adductus and skewfoot deformity. Clin Podiatr Med Surg. 2006;23:23–40.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Widhe T. Foot deformities at birth: a longitudinal prospective study over a 16- year period. J Pediatr Orthop. 1997;17:20–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Feng L, Sussman M. Combined medial cuniform osteotomy and multiple metatarsal osteotomies for correction of persistent metatarsus adductus in children. J Pediatr Orthop. 2016;36:730–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Williams C, James A, Tran T. Metatarsus adductus: development of a non-surgical treatment pathway. J Paediatr Child Health. 2013;49:428–33.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Connors J, Wernick E, Lowy L, Falcone J, Volpe R. Guidelines for evaluation and management of five common podopediatric conditions. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 1998;88:206–22.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Gore AI, Spencer JP. The newborn foot. Am Fam Physician. 2004;69:865–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Theodorou D, Theodorou S, Boutin R, Chung C, Fliszar E, Kakitsubata Y, Resnick D. Stress fractures of the lateral metatarsal bones in metatarsus adductus foot deformity: a previously unrecognized association. Skelet Radiol. 1999;28:679–84.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Smith JT, Bleck EE, Gamble JG, Rinsky LA, Pena T. Simple method of documenting metatarsus adductus. J Pediatr Orthop. 1991;11:679–80.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Herzenberg JE, Burghardt RD. Resistant metatarsus adductus: prospective randomized trial of casting versus orthosis. J Orthop Sci. 2014;19:250–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Miron M, Grimard G. Ultrasound evaluation of foot deformities in infants. Pediatr Radiol. 2016;46:193–209.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Eamsobhana P, Rojjananukulpong K, Ariyawatkul T, Chotigavanichaya C, Kaewpornsawan K. Does the parental stretching programs improve metatarsus adductus in newborns? J Orthop Surg. 2017;25:1–5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Cook DA, Breed AL, Cook T, Desmet AD, Muehle CM. Observer variability in the radiographic measurement and classification of metatarsus adductus. J Pediatr Orthop. 1992;12:86–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Farsetti P, Weinstein SL, Ponseti IV. The long-term functional and radiographic outcomes of untreated and non-operatively treated metatarsus adductus. J Bone Joint Surg (Am Vol). 1994;76A:257–65.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Lepow GM, Lepow RS, Lepow RM, Hillman L, Neville R. Pediatric metatarsus adductus angle. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 1987;77:529–32.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman D, Group TP. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg. 2010;8:336–41.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Huang X, Lin J, Demner-Fushman D. Evaluation of PICO as a knowledge representation for clinical questions. AMIA Annu Symp Proc Arch. 2016;2006:359–63.Google Scholar
  28. Veritas Health Innovation. Covidence systematic review software. Melbourne: Veritas Health Innovation; 2017.Google Scholar
  29. Mokkink L, Terwee C, Patrick D, Alonso J, Stratford P, Knol D, Bouter L, De Vet H, COSMIN checklist manual, http://www.cosmin.nl/images/upload/files/COSMIN%20checklist%20manual%20v9.pdf, Accessed 28th June, 2017
  30. Mokkink L, Terwee C, Gibbons E, Stratford P, Alonso J, Patrick D, Knol D, Bouter L, De Vet H. Inter-rater reliability of the COSMIN (COnsensus-based standards for the selection of health status measurement instruments) checklist. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010;10:25.Google Scholar
  31. Mokkink L, Terwee C, Patrick D, Alonso J, Stratford P, Knol D, Bouter L, De Vet H. International consensus on taxonomy, terminology and definitions of measurement properties: results of the COSMIN study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:737–45.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Dawoodi A, Perera A. Reliability of metatarsus adductus angle and correlation with hallux valgus. Foot Ankle Surg. 2012;18:180–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Dominguez G, Munuera PV. Metatarsus adductus angle in male and female feet - normal values with two measurement techniques. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2008;98:364–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. French S, Niespodziany J, Wysong D, Zahari D. A radiographic study of infant metatarsus adductus treatment by serial casting. J Foot Surg. 1985;24:222–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Engel E, Nelson E, Krems I. A simplified metatarsus adductus angle. J Am Podiatry Assoc. 1983;73:620–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Applegate K, Cost N. Image gently: a campaign to reduce Children’s Adolescents’ risk for Cancer during adulthood. J Adolesc Health. 2013;52:93–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Australian Government. Medicare Benefits Schedule. Canberra: Department of Health; 2017.Google Scholar
  38. Dawoodi A, Perera A. Radiological assessment of metatarsus adductus. Foot Ankle Surg. 2012;18:1–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Hutchinson B. Pediatric metatarsus adductus and skewfoot deformity. Clin Podiatr Med Surg. 2010;27:93–104.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2018

Advertisement