We have located links that may give you full text access.
High Variability of Observed Weight Bearing During Standing Foot and Ankle Radiographs.
Foot & Ankle International 2017 June
BACKGROUND: Weight-bearing radiographs are a critical component of evaluating foot and ankle pathology. An underlying assumption is that patients are placing 50% of their body weight on the affected foot during image acquisition. The accuracy of weight bearing during radiographs is unknown and, presumably, variable, which may result in uncertain ability of the resultant radiographs to appropriately portray the pathology of interest.
METHODS: Fifty subjects were tested. The percentage body weight through the foot of interest was measured at the moment of radiographic image acquisition. The subject was then instructed to bear "half [their] weight" prior to the next radiograph. The percentage body weight was calculated and compared to ideal 50% weight bearing.
RESULTS: The mean percentage body weight in trial 1 and 2 was 45.7% ± 3.2% ( P = .012 compared to the 50% mark) and 49.2% ± 2.4%, respectively ( P = .428 compared to 50%). The mean absolute difference in percentage weight bearing compared to 50% in trials 1 and 2 was 9.3% ± 2.3% and 5.8% ± 1.8%, respectively ( P = .005). For trial 1, 18/50 subjects were within the "ideal" (45%-55%) range for weight bearing compared to 32/50 on trial 2 ( P = .005). In trial 1, 24/50 subjects had "appropriate" (>45%) weight bearing compared to 39/50 on trial 2 ( P = .002).
CONCLUSIONS: There was substantial variability in the weight applied during radiograph acquisition. This study raises questions regarding the assumptions, reliability, and interpretation when evaluating weight-bearing radiographs.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, comparative study.
METHODS: Fifty subjects were tested. The percentage body weight through the foot of interest was measured at the moment of radiographic image acquisition. The subject was then instructed to bear "half [their] weight" prior to the next radiograph. The percentage body weight was calculated and compared to ideal 50% weight bearing.
RESULTS: The mean percentage body weight in trial 1 and 2 was 45.7% ± 3.2% ( P = .012 compared to the 50% mark) and 49.2% ± 2.4%, respectively ( P = .428 compared to 50%). The mean absolute difference in percentage weight bearing compared to 50% in trials 1 and 2 was 9.3% ± 2.3% and 5.8% ± 1.8%, respectively ( P = .005). For trial 1, 18/50 subjects were within the "ideal" (45%-55%) range for weight bearing compared to 32/50 on trial 2 ( P = .005). In trial 1, 24/50 subjects had "appropriate" (>45%) weight bearing compared to 39/50 on trial 2 ( P = .002).
CONCLUSIONS: There was substantial variability in the weight applied during radiograph acquisition. This study raises questions regarding the assumptions, reliability, and interpretation when evaluating weight-bearing radiographs.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, comparative study.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app