Assessing forefoot bursitis in rheumatoid arthritis: a comprehensive approach with ultrasound, MRI, and baropodometry.

Medical ultrasonography Pub Date : 2024-03-27 Epub Date: 2024-01-24 DOI:10.11152/mu-4323
Oana Șerban, Iulia Papp, Mihaela Cosmina Micu, Corina Delia Bocsa, Dan Duma, Ramona Adriana Boja, Manuela Lenghel, Maria Badarinza, Michael Pelea, Daniela Fodor
{"title":"Assessing forefoot bursitis in rheumatoid arthritis: a comprehensive approach with ultrasound, MRI, and baropodometry.","authors":"Oana Șerban, Iulia Papp, Mihaela Cosmina Micu, Corina Delia Bocsa, Dan Duma, Ramona Adriana Boja, Manuela Lenghel, Maria Badarinza, Michael Pelea, Daniela Fodor","doi":"10.11152/mu-4323","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>In rheumatoid arthritis (RA), forefoot bursitis is prevalent, with limited studies comparing ultrasonography (US) and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). This study aims to evaluate these bursae, providing a comparative analysis of US and MRI, and explore associations with demographic, disease-related factors, pain, clinical examination, and baropodometryin RA patients.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Participants with RA were recruited from the day-hospital clinic. The forefeet were assessed clinically, and the selected foot was examined by US and MRI to evaluate intermetatarsal (IMB) and submetatarsal bursitis (SMB). Baropodometry assessed plantar pressures and contact surfaces.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-five RA patients were enrolled, 85.7% females, mean age 59.2 (11.3) years, mean body mass index (BMI) 26.5 (5.7) kg/m2, median disease duration of 36.0 (16.5-114.0) months, and 34.3% with painful forefoot. A total of 140 intermetatarsal and 175 submetatarsal spaces were evaluated. Agreement between US and MRI was high (PA=97.14%, k=0.801, p<0.001), and interobserver reliability for both modalities was excellent (US: PA=98.73%, k=0.888, p<0.001; MRI: PA=98.41%, k=0.900, p<0.001). IMB was negatively associated with disease duration (the only independent predictor) and linked to clinical signs like the opening toes sign and hammer toe deformity. SMB showed an association with BMI and erosions. Baropodometric analysis indicated no significant differences in plantar pressures for IMB, and larger contact surfaces in SMB regions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>US and MRI are valuable tools for forefoot bursitis evaluation. IMB is associated with disease duration (negative association), the opening toes sign, and hammer toe deformity, while SMB correlates with BMI, erosions, and foot architectural deformity. Baropodometry revealed larger contact surfaces in regions with SMB.</p>","PeriodicalId":94138,"journal":{"name":"Medical ultrasonography","volume":" ","pages":"32-40"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical ultrasonography","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11152/mu-4323","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: In rheumatoid arthritis (RA), forefoot bursitis is prevalent, with limited studies comparing ultrasonography (US) and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). This study aims to evaluate these bursae, providing a comparative analysis of US and MRI, and explore associations with demographic, disease-related factors, pain, clinical examination, and baropodometryin RA patients.

Material and methods: Participants with RA were recruited from the day-hospital clinic. The forefeet were assessed clinically, and the selected foot was examined by US and MRI to evaluate intermetatarsal (IMB) and submetatarsal bursitis (SMB). Baropodometry assessed plantar pressures and contact surfaces.

Results: Thirty-five RA patients were enrolled, 85.7% females, mean age 59.2 (11.3) years, mean body mass index (BMI) 26.5 (5.7) kg/m2, median disease duration of 36.0 (16.5-114.0) months, and 34.3% with painful forefoot. A total of 140 intermetatarsal and 175 submetatarsal spaces were evaluated. Agreement between US and MRI was high (PA=97.14%, k=0.801, p<0.001), and interobserver reliability for both modalities was excellent (US: PA=98.73%, k=0.888, p<0.001; MRI: PA=98.41%, k=0.900, p<0.001). IMB was negatively associated with disease duration (the only independent predictor) and linked to clinical signs like the opening toes sign and hammer toe deformity. SMB showed an association with BMI and erosions. Baropodometric analysis indicated no significant differences in plantar pressures for IMB, and larger contact surfaces in SMB regions.

Conclusions: US and MRI are valuable tools for forefoot bursitis evaluation. IMB is associated with disease duration (negative association), the opening toes sign, and hammer toe deformity, while SMB correlates with BMI, erosions, and foot architectural deformity. Baropodometry revealed larger contact surfaces in regions with SMB.

评估类风湿性关节炎患者的前足滑囊炎:超声波、核磁共振成像和气压测量的综合方法。
目的:在类风湿性关节炎(RA)中,前足滑囊炎很常见,但对超声波成像(US)和磁共振成像(MRI)进行比较的研究却很有限。本研究旨在评估这些滑囊,提供 US 和 MRI 的对比分析,并探讨与 RA 患者的人口统计学、疾病相关因素、疼痛、临床检查和 baropodometry 的关联:从日间医院诊所招募 RA 患者。对前足进行临床评估,并通过 US 和 MRI 检查选定的足部,以评估跖间滑囊炎(IMB)和跖下滑囊炎(SMB)。气压测量法评估足底压力和接触面:35名RA患者中,85.7%为女性,平均年龄59.2(11.3)岁,平均体重指数(BMI)26.5(5.7)kg/m2,中位病程36.0(16.5-114.0)个月,34.3%的患者前足疼痛。共评估了 140 个跖骨间隙和 175 个跖骨下间隙。US 和 MRI 的一致性很高(PA=97.14%,k=0.801,p 结论:US 和 MRI 是评估前足滑囊炎的重要工具。IMB与病程(负相关)、开趾征和锤状趾畸形有关,而SMB与BMI、糜烂和足部结构畸形有关。气压测量显示,SMB 患者的接触面更大。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信