Navicular bone position determined by positional MRI: a reproducibility study

Abstract

Objective

To examine intraobserver, interobserver and between-day reproducibility of positional MRI for evaluation of navicular bone height (NVH) and medial navicular position (MNP).

Materials and methods

Positional MRI (pMRI) of the foot was performed on ten healthy participants (0.25 T G-scanner). Scanning was performed in supine and standing position, respectively. Two radiologists evaluated the images in a blinded manner. Reliability and agreement were assessed by calculation of intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and 95 % limits of agreement as a percentage of the mean (LOA%).

Results

Intraobserver and interobserver reliability was “substantial” in both supine and standing position (ICC 0.86–0.98) and showed good agreement (LOA% 4.9–14.7 %). Between-day reliability of navicular height and medial navicular position in standing position remained substantial (ICC 0.85–0.92) with adequate agreement (LOA% 8.3–19.8 %). In supine position between-day reliability was “moderate” for NVH (ICC 0.72) and “slight” for MNP (ICC 0.39). Agreement remained adequate between-days for MNP in supine position (LOA% 17.7 %), but it was less than adequate for NVH in supine position (LOA% 24.2 %).

Conclusion

Navicular height and medial navicular position can be measured by pMRI in a very reproducible manner within and between observers. Increased measurement variation is observed between-days in supine position, which may be due to small positional differences or other unknown biomechanical factors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  1. 1.

    Younger AS, Sawatzky B, Dryden P. Radiographic assessment of adult flatfoot. Foot Ankle Int. 2005;26:820–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Neal BS, Griffiths IB, Dowling GJ, Murley GS, Munteanu SE, Franettovich Smith MM, et al. Foot posture as a risk factor for lower limb overuse injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Foot Ankle Res. 2014;7:55.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Williams DS, Davis IM, Scholz JP, Hamill J, Buchanan TS. High-arched runners exhibit increased leg stiffness compared to low-arched runners. Gait Posture. 2004;19:263–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Saltzman CL, Nawoczenski DA, Talbot KD. Measurement of the medial longitudinal arch. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1995;76:45–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Menz HB. Alternative techniques for the clinical assessment of foot pronation. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 1998;88:119–29.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Williams DS, McClay IS. Measurements used to characterize the foot and the medial longitudinal arch: reliability and validity. Phys Ther. 2000;80:864–71.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Metcalfe SA, Bowling FL, Baltzopoulos V, Maganaris C, Reeves ND. The reliability of measurements taken from radiographs in the assessment of paediatric flat foot deformity. Foot (Edinb). 2012;22:156–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Cavanagh PR, Boulton AJM. The relationship of static foot structure to dynamic foot function. J Biomech. 1997;30:243–50.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    McCrory JL, Young MJ, Boulton AJM, Cavanagh PR. Arch index as a predictor of arch height. Foot. 1997;7:79–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Cornwall MW, McPoil TG. Relative movement of the navicular bone during normal walking. Foot Ankle Int. 1999;20:507–12.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Harris EJ, Vanore JV, Thomas JL, Kravitz SR, Mendelson SA, Mendicino RW, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of pediatric flatfoot. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2004;43:341–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Hansen BB, Bouert R, Bliddal H, Christensen R, Bendix T, Christensen A, et al. External pneumatic compression device prevents fainting in standing weight-bearing MRI: a cohort study. Skelet Radiol. 2013; 1437–42.

  13. 13.

    De Vet HCW, Terwee CB, Knol DL, Bouter LM. When to use agreement versus reliability measures. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59:1033–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Shrout PE. Measurement reliability and agreement in psychiatry. Stat Methods Med Res. 1998;7:301–17.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Weir JP. Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. J Strength Train. 2005;19:231–40.

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Henriksen M, Lund H, Moe-Nilssen R, Bliddal H, Danneskiod-Samsøe B. Test-retest reliability of trunk accelerometric gait analysis. Gait Posture. 2004;19:288–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Kottner J, Audigé L, Brorson S, Donner A, Gajewski BJ, Hróbjartsson A, et al. Guidelines for reporting reliability and agreement studies (GRRAS) were proposed. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:96–106.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Rathleff MS, Moelgaard C, Lykkegaard OJ. Intra- and interobserver reliability of quantitative ultrasound measurement of the plantar fascia. J Clin Ultrasound. 2010;39:128–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Scharfbillig R, Evans AM, Pod D, Dev GC, Copper AW, Pod B, et al. Criterion validation of four criteria of the foot posture index. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2004;94:31–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Wolf P, Luechinger R, Boesiger P, Stuessi E, Stacoff A. A MR imaging procedure to measure tarsal bone rotations. J Biomech Eng. 2007;129:931–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Vinicombe A, Raspovic A, Menz HB. Reliability of navicular displacement measurement as a clinical indicator of foot posture. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2001;91:262–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Sutera R, Iovane A, Sorrentino F, Candela F, Mularo V, La TG, et al. Plantar fascia evaluation with a dedicated magnetic resonance scanner in weight-bearing position: our experience in patients with plantar fasciitis and in healthy volunteers. Radiol Med. 2010;115:246–60.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The Danish Council for Independent Research (Det Frie Forskningsråd), the Danish Rheumatism Association (Gigtforeningen) and the OAK Foundation have kindly provided grants supporting the study. The authors declare no conflicts of interest. We wish to acknowledge professor Marius Henriksen for fruitful discussions during preparation of the manuscript and research technologist Rasmus Bouert for technical assistance. Esaote SpA, Genoa, Italy has kindly provided technical support to optimize the pMRI protocol design.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Philip Hansen.

Ethics declarations

Source of funding

No external funding source was used for this study.

Conflict of interest

No conflict of interest. The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Philip Hansen and Finn E. Johannsen share first authorship

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(DOCX 50 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hansen, P., Johannsen, F.E., Hangaard, S. et al. Navicular bone position determined by positional MRI: a reproducibility study. Skeletal Radiol 45, 205–211 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-015-2272-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Navicular bone
  • Positional MRI
  • Weight-bearing MRI
  • Plantar arch
  • Foot posture
  • Reproducibility
  • Reliability
  • Agreement