The relationship between measures of foot mobility and subtalar joint stiffness using vibration energy with color Doppler imaging-A clinical proof-of-concept validation study

Subtalar joint (STJ) dysfunction can contribute to movement disturbances. Vibration energy with color Doppler imaging (VECDI) may be useful for detecting STJ stiffness changes. Objectives (1) Support proof-of-concept that VECDI could detect STJ stiffness differences; (2) Establish STJ stiffness range in asymptomatic volunteers; (3) Examine relationships between STJ stiffness and foot mobility; and (4) Assess VECDI precision and reliability for examining STJ stiffness. Methods After establishing cadaveric testing model proof-of-concept, STJ stiffness (threshold units, ΔTU), ankle complex passive range-of-motion (PROM) and midfoot-width-difference (MFWDiff) data were collected in 28 asymptomatic subjects in vivo . Three reliability measurements were collected per variable; Rater-1 collected on all subjects and rater-2 on the first ten subjects. Subjects were classified into three STJ stiffness groups. Results Cadaveric VECDI measurement intra-rater reliability was 0.80. A significantly lower STJ ΔTU (p = .002) and ankle complex PROM (p < .001) was observed during the screw fixation versus normal condition. A fair correlation (r = 0.660) was observed between cadaveric ΔTU and ankle complex PROM. In vivo VECDI measurements demonstrated good intra-rater (0.76–0.84) versus poor inter-rater (-3.11) reliability. Significant positive correlations were found between STJ stiffness and both dorsum ( r = .440) and posterior ( r = .390) PROM. MFWDiff exhibited poor relationships with stiffness ( r = .103) and either dorsum (r = .256) or posterior (r = .301) PROM. STJ stiffness ranged from 2.33 to 7.50 ΔTUs, categorizing subjects’ STJ stiffness as increased (n = 6), normal (n = 15), or decreased (n = 7). Significant ANOVA main effects for classification were found based on ΔTU (p< .001), dorsum PROM (p = .017), and posterior PROM (p = .036). Post-hoc tests revealed significant: (1) ΔTU differences between all stiffness groups (p < .001); (2) dorsum PROM differences between the increased versus normal (p = .044) and decreased (p = .017) stiffness groups; and (3) posterior PROM differences between the increased versus decreased stiffness groups (p = .044). A good relationship was found between STJ stiffness and dorsum PROM in the increased stiffness group ( r = .853) versus poor, nonsignificant relationships in the normal (r = -.042) or decreased stiffness (r = -.014) groups. Conclusion PROM may not clinically explain all aspects of joint mobility. Joint VECDI stiffness assessment should be considered as a complimentary measurement technique.