Comparing Symptomatic and Asymptomatic Flatfeet Using Known Markers of Progressive Collapsing Foot Deformity (PCFD): A Case Control Study

Abstract

Category: Midfoot/Forefoot; Hindfoot Introduction/Purpose: Flattening of the longitudinal arch of the foot (Flatfoot) can represent a normal spectrum of foot morphology and alignment. The issue comes when the foot is collapsing progressively, what is now termed Progressive Collapsing Foot Deformity (PCFD). Literature on asymptomatic flatfoot is scarce since asymptomatic patients do not seek medical attention. Alignment differences between asymptomatic flatfoot and PCFD have not been established and might represent a key-step in understanding predictors of PCFD. The objective of this prospective study was to compare established PCFD measures in a cohort of asymptomatic flatfoot, PCFD patients and healthy controls. We hypothesized that asymptomatic flatfeet alignment would differ from both symptomatic PCFD patients and healthy controls. Methods: In this prospective comparative study, patients with asymptomatic flatfeet were recruited to undergo a weight-bearing CT (WBCT) scan. This cohort (22 feet, 10 males, 12 females) was compared to two other prospective cohorts (22 symptomatic PCFD and 22 healthy controls). Along with demographic data, PCFD measurements performed include Foot and Ankle Offset (FAO), Forefoot Arch Angle (FAA), Middle Facet Uncoverage, and the Transverse Arch Plantar (TAP) angle. Normality of variables was assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test. Chi-squared or analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was performed to compare each parameter between the three groups. A post-hoc Bonferroni test was then performed to assess significance between each group pairing. P-values of >0.05 were considered significant. Results: All three groups were comparable on BMI (p=0.10), Age (p=0.75) and Gender (p=0.78). All measurements taken differed significantly between the symptomatic PCFD and healthy controls (Table 1). FAO was significantly different between controls vs asymptomatic (p < 0.001) and asymptomatic vs symptomatic (p < 0.001). FAA was also significantly different between asymptomatic and both symptomatic (p=0.001) and control groups (p=0.001). Middle facet uncoverage differed between the asymptomatic and control group (p=0.001) but the asymptomatic and symptomatic group were similar (p=0.106). While the TAP angle was significantly different between asymptotic and symptomatic groups (p=0.013), the asymptomatic and control groups failed to reach significance (p=0.061) (Table 1). On average, deformity measurements for asymptomatic flatfeet were in between the values for healthy controls and symptomatic PCFD (Figures 1-3). Conclusion: To our knowledge this is the first prospective study to compare healthy controls, asymptomatic flatfoot and symptomatic PCFD patients. We observed that asymptomatic flatfoot patients usually had measurements of PCFD that would fall in between normal alignment asymptomatic controls and symptomatic PCFD patients. Further, the asymptomatic group differed significantly from both other groups on every measure but two. Our data supports the idea that asymptomatic flatfoot should be considered a risk factor for Progressive Collapsing Foot Deformity. Our data can hopefully shine light in finding predictive markers for the development of PCFD.