Key words
falls - ankle - rheumatoid arthritis - musculoskeletal ultrasound - predictors
Schlüsselwörter
Rheumatoide Arthritis - Stürze - Prädiktoren - Ultraschall des Bewegungsapparates
- Knöchel
Introduction
Falling is a major public problem with major health and economic consequences. Although
it was extensively studied in elderly population in whom falls occur in around 30%
[1], Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients have higher prevalence of falls compared to
the healthy population [2]. Fall is a multifactorial event with interaction between internal and external factors
[3]
[4]. Several fall risk factors were diagnosed in RA; including muscle weakness, joint
pain , joint deformity, fatigue, defected balance and gait problems [2].
Prediction of falls in RA is of a paramount importance where it allows early application
of fall preventive measures and protects the patient from painful disabling experiences
including fractures and traumatic brain injuries. Among the factors previously studied
as fall predictors in RA were muscle volume, balance status, functional performance
and functional disabilities [3]
[4].
Although the feet and ankle joints are commonly affected in RA patients, clinical
assessment is usually neglected in routine care. Postulated causes include the exclusion
of ankle and foot examination from the DAS-28 score which is a common tool for patients’
follow up and the presence of foot deformities that hinder proper examination [5].
Musculoskeletal ultrasonography can detect subclinical inflammation and structural
damage and helps in the follow up process. Besides being is a bedside, relatively
cheap, radiation free tool with diagnostic efficacy comparable to MRI [6].
As far as we can tell, no previous study used the MSUS detected ankle and foot changes
as predictor of falls in patients with RA. Therefore, in this study we aimed to investigate
our hypothesis claiming that sonographic examination of ankle and foot can predict
fall risk in RA patients.
Subjects and methods
Study design and study setting This is an observational cross section study that was conducted in the outpatient
clinic and inpatient word of the Rheumatology and Rehabilitation Department of our
university hospital.
Ethical Consideration This study was approved by the local ethical committee of the Faculty of Medicine
and according to the declaration of Helsinki. Clinical trial registration ID (NCT04464096).
All patients provided written informed consent before enrollment.
Patients Eligible patients were 101 adult RA patients fulfilling the 2010 ACR/EULAR criteria
[7] who were consecutively presented at the outpatient clinic and inpatient word of
the Rheumatology department during a 12 months period from April 2018 to April 2019.
Exclusion criteria were patients aged <18 years or those using walking assistive devices,
those with lower limb disability preventing the participant from performing the mobility
tests, and those who were using antidepressants and/or sedatives. Patients with severe
comorbidities, severe vision impairment, hearing loss or neurological diseases that
interferes with the mobility as stroke or neuropathy, were also excluded.
Methods
Basic demographic and clinical data were collected including age, sex, family history
and disease duration. History of chronic foot pain of >3 months and current medication
history were also recorded. All participants were examined clinically for systemic
and musculoskeletal evaluation. Each patient was assessed for disease activity using
Disease activity score (DAS 28) ESR [8] and functional level using Health assessment questionnaire disability index (HAQ-DI)
score [9]. History of falling defined as “an unexpected event in which the person comes to
rest on the ground, the floor or lower level” [10] in the past year was taken and accordingly, patients were divided into fallers and
non-fallers. Foot problems were assessed clinically by manual muscle power testing
of the muscles around the ankle joint and subtalar joint [11]. Muscle power of the toes was assessed by the paper grip test [12]. Plantar sensation was assessed at 6 sites using a 10-gm monofilament (fine touch)
[13]. Assessment of the range of motion of ankle joint was done using a modified lunge
test [14] and passive subtalar ROM was performed clinically . According to foot type examination
using the wet test technique [15], 3 types of feet were diagnosed; normal Arch foot, flat foot and high Arch foot.
Foot deformities were assessed clinically by inspecting and palpating the feet in
setting and standing positions .Patients’ balance status were investigated using the
Berg balance scale (BBS) [16] and Tenitti balance assessment tool (TBAT) [17]. Gait speed (self-selected)was assessed using 6-meters walk test [18]. The physical examination and clinical tests were performed by a rheumatologist
who was blind to the fall history of the patients.
Laboratory investigations including complete blood count (CBC), erythrocyte sedimentation
rate (ESR), liver and renal function test and Rheumatoid factor (RF) were performed
to the studied patients.
Musculoskeletal ultrasonography (MSUS) of foot and ankle Using a high end machine; MyLab 7 (Esaote, Europe B.V. Maastricht, Netherlands) with
high frequency linear array transducer (10–19 MHz). Four joints were assessed bilaterally
for synovial proliferation and synovitis by grey scale (GS) and power Doppler (PD)
modes. In each foot; tibiotalar, talonavicular and metatarsophalangeal joints (first
and second) were examined. Tendons around the ankle (dorsal flexors, plantar flexors
and peroneal tendons) were examined for tenosynovitis by GS and PD. The following
variables were measured on each evaluation:
Synovitis (19): which is hypoechoic thickening with or without effusion with 4 grades, Doppler activity
[19]: After adjustment of the machine to get the power Doppler mode, 4 grades PD are
prescribed; Grade 0 to 3, Tenosynovitis(20): Defined as a hypoechoic or anechoic thickened tissue with or without fluid within
the tendon sheath. Tenosynovitis was evaluated and graded by grey scale(GS) and power
Doppler (PD) using qualitative score, binary evaluation – 0 (absent) or 1 (present),
Bone erosion
[20]: Erosion was defined as an interruption of the bone surface on two perpendicular
planes. Semi-quantitative scoring of bone erosion: Grade 0 to 3 [21] was used.
The MSUS examination was done by a rheumatologist with 6 years’ experience in MSUS,
and who was blind to the fall history and clinical data of the patient.
Statistical analysis
Data were verified, coded by the researcher, and analyzed using SPSS version 21. Descriptive
statistics: Means, standard deviations, medians, inter-quartile range (IQR) and percentages
were calculated. Test of significances: Chi square and Fisher Exact tests were used
to compare the difference in distribution of frequencies among different groups. For
continuous variables, independent t-test analysis was carried out to compare the means
of normally distributed data, while Mann-Whitney U test was calculated to test the
median differences of the data that do not follow normal distribution. Multivariate
logistic regression analysis was calculated to investigate the significant factors
influencing falling history (Odds Ratio -OR- and 95% confidence interval −95% CI).
The clinical and demographic and sonographic factors with proven statistical significance
from the univariate analyses were further included in the multivariate models. ROC
curve was depicted for the predictive performance of the different correlates of falling,
analyzed as area under the curve (AUC), standard error (SE) and 95% CI. Validity statistics
(sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value –PPV & NPV-) were
calculated. A p-value equals or less than 0.05 was considered significant
Results
One hundred eight patients were found to be eligible for the study. Seven patients
were excluded; three patients refused to participate in the study, while four patients
missed the MSUS appointment.
According to the falling history within the last year, 101 RA patients were grouped
into fallers (45 patients) and non-fallers (56 patients). The frequency of falling
accidents in the fallers were as following, only once in 31 (68.9%) patients, twice
in 11 (24.4) three times and more in 3 (6.7%). Falling resulted in bone fracture in
4 (8.9%) patients, Minor head trauma in 3(6.7%) and only bruising in the rest of patient
(84.4%).
[Table 1] shows the basic demographic and clinical data of the patients. We found that 73.2%
of non-fallers had moderate disease activity while 60% of fallers had high disease
activity.
Table 1 Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of the Studied Groups.
|
Variable
|
Non-Fallers (N=56)
|
Fallers (N=45)
|
P-value
|
|
Age/Years
|
45.21±11.4
|
50.56±12.8
|
0.029*
|
|
Sex (Male/Female)
|
4/52
|
4/41
|
0.514**
|
|
Disease Duration/Years mean±SD
|
5.87±0.8
|
7.72±1.2
|
0.001*
|
|
Disease Duration (Early/Late)
|
12/44
|
5/40
|
0.133**
|
|
ESR 1st hour mean±SD
|
41.82±2.8
|
45.96±3.4
|
0.164*
|
|
Positive RF N (%)
|
35 (62.5%)
|
29 (64.4%)
|
0.503**
|
|
Disease Activity (DAS-28) N (%)
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 (21.4%)
|
18 (60%)
|
0.029**
|
|
|
41 (73.2%)
|
27 (40%)
|
|
|
|
3(5.4%)
|
0
|
|
|
|
0
|
0
|
|
|
Gait Speed Test (Median, IQR)
|
1.2 (0.6)
|
0.7 (0.5)
|
<0.001*
|
|
HAQ-DI (Median, IQR)
|
1.2 (0.8)
|
1.7 (0.9)
|
0.009*
|
|
HAQ-DI Severity Category
|
|
|
|
|
|
27 (48.2%)
|
14 (31.1%)
|
0.082**
|
|
|
29 (51.8%)
|
31 (68.9%)
|
|
|
Tinetti balance Assessment
|
24 (3)
|
20 (10)
|
<0.001*
|
|
Tinetti Severity Category
|
|
|
|
|
|
34 (60.7%)
|
9 (20%)
|
<0.001**
|
|
|
22 (39.3%)
|
19 (42.2%)
|
|
|
|
0 (0%)
|
17 (37.8%)
|
|
|
Berg balance scale (Median, IQR)
|
37.5 (17)
|
40 (13)
|
0.044*
|
|
Berg balance Category
|
|
|
|
|
|
32 (57.1%)
|
8 (17.8%)
|
<0.001**
|
|
|
22 (39.3%)
|
19 (42.2%)
|
|
|
|
2 (3.6%)
|
18 (40%)
|
|
*Independent t-test was used to compare the means among groups. ** Chi-square analysis
was used to compare the frequency among groups. N: number, ESR: Erythrocyte sedimentation
rate, DAS-28: Disease Activity Score-28, Significance was considered when P value
is ≤0.05.
Around 80% of fallers were at moderate and high risks of fall according to both Tinetti
and Berg balance tests while nearly 60% in non-fallers were at low fall risk.
Physical examination of the ankles and feet of the studied population were shown in
[Table 2] which reviled that feet of the fallers showed weaker muscles of the ankle, subtalar
and toes and more restricted ROM of the ankle and subtalar joints compared to the
non- fallers’ feet with significant differences between them (P<0.05). Most of non-fallers
(91.1%) were having normal medial longitudinal arch compared to 60% in fallers’ feet
with highly significant difference between them (P=0.001). Hammer toe deformity was
the commonest deformity in both fallers and non-fallers; 48.9 and 25% respectively.
Normal plantar sensation was detected in all our patients.
Table 2 Clinical foot Characteristics of the Studied Groups.
|
Variable
|
Non- fallers (N=56)
|
Fallers (N=45)
|
P-value
|
|
Weak Muscle Power N ( %)
|
|
Rt. Ankle J (dorsiflexors & plantar flexors)
|
4 (7.1%)
|
17 (37.8%)
|
<0.001**
|
|
Rt. Subtalar J (Ever & Inver)
|
5 (8.9%)
|
16 (35.5%)
|
0.001**
|
|
Lt. Ankle J (dorsiflexors & plantar flexors)
|
6 (10.7%)
|
13 (28.9%)
|
0.020**
|
|
Lt. Subtalar (Ever & Inver)
|
5 (8.9%)
|
13 (28.9%)
|
0.009**
|
|
weak Toe Strength
|
5 (8.9%)
|
17 (37.8%)
|
0.001**
|
|
Restricted ROM N (%)
|
|
Rt Ankle
|
6 (10.7%)
|
19 (42.2%)
|
<0.001**
|
|
Rt Subtalar
|
4 (7.1%)
|
19 (42.2%)
|
<0.001**
|
|
Lt Ankle
|
8 (14.3%)
|
19 (42.2%)
|
0.002**
|
|
Lt Subtalar
|
3 (5.4%)
|
15 (33.3%)
|
<0.001**
|
|
Foot Type N (%)
|
|
Normal
|
51 (91.1%)
|
27 (60%)
|
0.001*
|
|
Flat foot
|
3 (5.4%)
|
9 (20%)
|
|
|
High Arched Foot
|
2 (3.5%)
|
9 (20%)
|
|
|
Ankle & Foot Deformity N (%)
|
|
Pronated foot
|
1 (1.8%)
|
2 (4.4%)
|
0.418**
|
|
Dislocated Toe Joint
|
0 (0%)
|
4 (8.9%)
|
0.036**
|
|
Hammer Toe
|
14 (25%)
|
22 (48.9%)
|
0.013*
|
|
Hallux Valgus
|
1 (1.8%)
|
3 (6.7%)
|
0.211**
|
*Independent t-test was used to compare the means among groups. ** Chi-square analysis
was used to compare the frequency among groups. N: number, Rt: right, Lt: left, Ever:
evertors, Inver: invertors, ROM: range of motion; Significance was considered when
P value is ≤0.05.
Ankle and foot MSUS examination of our study population by both GS and PD showed variable
degrees of both inflammatory and destruction changes at the level of the joints and
the surrounding tendons. Synovial hypertrophy, erosion and effusion of the examined
joints and tenosynovitis of the surrounding tendons were detected. Synovial hypertrophy
of the TNJ was the commonest joint finding while tenosynovitis of the peroneal muscles
was the commonest ultra-sonographic finding on the level of tendons [Table 3].
Table 3 Sonographic data of the ankles and feet of the study population.
|
Non-fallers (N=56)
|
Fallers (N=45)
|
P value
|
Non-fallers (N=56)
|
Fallers (N=45)
|
P value
|
|
Rt. TTJ
|
Lt. TTJ
|
|
Erosion
|
10(17.9%)
|
6 (13.3%)
|
0.368*
|
3 (5.4%)
|
7 (15.6%)
|
0.068*
|
|
G 1
|
10 (100%)
|
3 (50%)
|
0.025*
|
1 (33.3%)
|
3 (42.9%)
|
0.669*
|
|
G 2
|
0 (0%)
|
2 (33.3%)
|
2 (66.7%)
|
4 (57.1%)
|
|
G 3
|
0 (0%)
|
1 (16.7%)
|
0
|
0
|
|
Effusion
|
2 (3.6%)
|
6 (13.3%)
|
0.076*
|
4 (7.1%)
|
3 (6.7%)
|
0.621*
|
|
Mild
|
1 (50%)
|
6 (100%)
|
0.037**
|
3 (75%)
|
3 (100%)
|
0.553**
|
|
Moderate
|
1 (50%)
|
0 (0%)
|
1 (24%)
|
0 (0%)
|
|
SH
|
13(23.2%)
|
16 (35.6%)
|
0.137*
|
10 (17.9%)
|
8 (17.8%)
|
0.669*
|
|
G1
|
5 (38.5%)
|
5 (31.2%)
|
0.690*
|
4 (40%)
|
2 (25%)
|
0.571*
|
|
G2
|
6 (46.2%)
|
8 (50%)
|
5 (50%)
|
3 (37.5%)
|
|
G3
|
2 (15.3%)
|
3 (18.8%)
|
1 (10%)
|
3 (37.5%)
|
|
Rt. TNJ
|
Lt. TNJ
|
|
Erosion
|
6 (10.7%)
|
5 (11.1%)
|
0.598**
|
6 (10.7%)
|
12 (26.7%)
|
0.037*
|
|
G 1
|
6 (100%)
|
5 (100%)
|
0.598**
|
5 (83.3%)
|
8 (66.7%)
|
0.439**
|
|
G 2
|
0
|
0
|
1 (16.7%)
|
4 (33.3%)
|
|
G 3
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Effusion
|
1 (1.8%)
|
3 (6.7%)
|
0.231**
|
1 (1.8%)
|
1 (2.2%)
|
0.695**
|
|
Mild
|
0 (0%)
|
2 (66.7%)
|
0.190**
|
0 (0%)
|
1 (100%)
|
0.247*
|
|
Moderate
|
1 (100%)
|
1 (33.3%)
|
1 (100%)
|
0 (0%)
|
|
SH
|
37 (66.1%)
|
31 (68.9%)
|
0.476*
|
25 (44.6%)
|
23 (51.1%)
|
0.518*
|
|
G1
|
21 (56.8%)
|
16 (51.6%)
|
0.445*
|
11 (44%)
|
9 (39.1%)
|
0.762*
|
|
G2
|
12 (32.4%)
|
9 (29%)
|
10 (40%)
|
8 (34.8%)
|
|
G3
|
4 (10.8%)
|
6 (19.4%)
|
4 (16%)
|
6 (26.1%)
|
|
PD
|
1 (1.8%)
|
3 (6.7%)
|
0.231**
|
1 (1.8%)
|
2 (4.4%)
|
0.418**
|
|
G1
|
0 (0%)
|
2 (66.7%)
|
0.190*
|
1 (100%)
|
2 (100%)
|
0.418**
|
|
G2
|
1 (100%)
|
1 (33.3%)
|
0
|
0
|
|
G3
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Rt. 1
st
MTP
|
Lt. 1
st
MTP
|
|
Erosion
|
4 (7.1%)
|
4 (9.8%)
|
0.514**
|
2 (3.6%)
|
8 (17.8%)
|
0.020**
|
|
G 1
|
4 (100%)
|
4 (100%)
|
0.514**
|
2 (100%)
|
7 (87.5%)
|
0.800**
|
|
G 2
|
0
|
0
|
0 (0%)
|
1 (12.5%)
|
|
G 3
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Effusion
|
3 (5.4%)
|
5 (11.1%)
|
0.243**
|
2 (3.6%)
|
5 (11.1%)
|
0.139**
|
|
Mild
|
3 (100%)
|
5 (100%)
|
0.243**
|
2 (100%)
|
4 (80%)
|
0.133**
|
|
Mod.
|
0
|
0
|
0 (0%)
|
1 (20%)
|
|
SH
|
19 (33.9%)
|
20 (44.4%)
|
0.191*
|
18 (32.1%)
|
19 (42.2%)
|
0.201*
|
|
G1
|
7 (36.8%)
|
8 (40%)
|
0.896*
|
4 (22.2%)
|
0 (0%)
|
0.056*
|
|
G2
|
8 (42.1%)
|
7 (35%)
|
7 (38.8%)
|
11 (57.9%)
|
|
G3
|
4 (21.1%)
|
5 (25%)
|
7 (38.8%)
|
8 (42.1%)
|
|
PD
|
3 (5.4%)
|
4 (8.9%)
|
0.379**
|
1 (1.8%)
|
4 (8.9%)
|
0.121**
|
|
G 1
|
2 (66.7%)
|
2 (50%)
|
0.629**
|
0
|
0
|
0.194**
|
|
G 2
|
1 (33.3%)
|
2 (50%)
|
1 (100%)
|
3 (75%)
|
|
G 3
|
0
|
0
|
0 (0%)
|
1 (25%)
|
|
Rt. 2
nd
MTP
|
Lt. 2
nd
MTP
|
|
Erosion
|
3 (5.4%)
|
6 (13.3%)
|
0.148**
|
0 (0%)
|
6 (13.3%)
|
0.006**
|
|
G 1
|
2 (66.7%)
|
5 (83.3%)
|
0.583**
|
0 (0%)
|
2 (33.3%)
|
0.001**
|
|
G 2
|
1 (33.3%)
|
1 (16.7%)
|
|
0 (0%)
|
4 (66.7%)
|
|
|
G 3
|
0
|
0
|
|
0
|
0
|
|
Effusion
|
2 (3.6%)
|
4 (8.9%)
|
0.241**
|
1 (1.8%)
|
2 (4.4%)
|
0.418**
|
|
Mild
|
2 (100%)
|
4 (100%)
|
0.241**
|
1 (100%)
|
2 (100%)
|
0.418**
|
|
Moderate
|
0
|
0
|
|
0
|
0
|
|
|
SH
|
25 (44.6%)
|
18 (40%)
|
0.639*
|
19 (33.9%)
|
13 (28.9%)
|
0.373*
|
|
G1
|
3 (12%)
|
2 (11.1%)
|
0.789*
|
2 (10.5%)
|
2 (15.4%)
|
|
G2
|
12 (48%)
|
11 (61.1%)
|
11 (57.9%)
|
8 (61.5%)
|
0.545*
|
|
G3
|
10 (40%)
|
5 (27.8%)
|
6 (31.6%)
|
3 (23.1%)
|
|
PD
|
2 (3.6%)
|
4 (8.9%)
|
0.241**
|
0 (0%)
|
2 (4.4%)
|
0.196**
|
|
G1
|
1 (50%)
|
2 (50%)
|
0.166*
|
0
|
0
|
0.201*
|
|
G2
|
0 (0%)
|
2 (50%)
|
0 (0%)
|
1 (50%)
|
|
G3
|
1 (50%)
|
0 (0%)
|
0 (0%)
|
1 (50%)
|
|
Rt. Ankle dorsal flexors
|
Lt. ankle dorsal flexors
|
|
Tenosynovitis
|
12 (21.4%)
|
14 (31.1%)
|
0.190*
|
8 (14.3%)
|
14 (31.1%)
|
0.042*
|
|
Mild
|
9 (75%)
|
9 (64.3%)
|
0.492*
|
6 (75%)
|
10 (71.4%)
|
0.180*
|
|
Moderate
|
3 (25%)
|
4 (28.6%)
|
2 (25%)
|
2 (14.3%)
|
|
Severe
|
0 (0%)
|
1 (7.1%)
|
0 (0%)
|
2 (14.3%)
|
|
PD
|
1 (1.8%)
|
4 (8.9%)
|
0.121**
|
0 (0%)
|
1 (2.2%)
|
0.446**
|
|
G1
|
0 (0%)
|
4 (100%)
|
0.020**
|
0
|
0
|
0.446**
|
|
G2
|
1 (100%)
|
0 (0%)
|
0 (0%)
|
1 (100%)
|
|
G3
|
0
|
0
|
9
|
0
|
|
Rt. ankle planter flexors
|
Lt. ankle planter flexors
|
|
Tenosynovitis
|
21 (37.5%)
|
19 (42.2%)
|
0.630*
|
18 (32.1%)
|
20 (44.4%)
|
0.205*
|
|
Mild
|
12 (57.1%)
|
16 (84.2%)
|
0.034*
|
11 (61.1%)
|
9 (45%)
|
0.260*
|
|
Moderate
|
7 (33.3%)
|
3 (15.8%)
|
7 (38.9%)
|
10 (50%)
|
|
Severe
|
2 (9.6%)
|
0 (0%)
|
0 (0%)
|
1 (5%)
|
|
PD
|
1 (1.8%)
|
3 (6.7%)
|
0.231**
|
1 (1.8%)
|
2 (4.4%)
|
0.231**
|
|
G1
|
0
|
0
|
0.241*
|
0 (0%)
|
1 (50%)
|
0.689*
|
|
G2
|
1 (100%)
|
3 (100%)
|
1 (100%)
|
0 (0%)
|
|
G3
|
0
|
0
|
0 (0%)
|
1 (50%)
|
|
Rt. Peroneal tendons
|
Lt. Peroneal tendons
|
|
Tenosynovitis
|
22 (39.3%)
|
25 (55.6%)
|
0.103*
|
22 (39.3%)
|
20 (44.4%)
|
0.374*
|
|
Mild
|
15 (68.2%)
|
20 (80%)
|
0.122*
|
15 (68.2%)
|
12 (60%)
|
0.648*
|
|
Moderate
|
7 (31.8%)
|
5 (20%)
|
6 (27.1%)
|
5 (25%)
|
|
Severe
|
0
|
0
|
1 (1.8)
|
3 (15%)
|
|
PD
|
2 (3.6%)
|
1 (2.2%)
|
0.582*
|
1 (1.8%)
|
2 (4.4%)
|
0.231**
|
|
G1
|
2 (100%)
|
0 (0%)
|
0.333*
|
0 (0%)
|
1 (50%)
|
0.221*
|
|
G2
|
0 (0%)
|
1 (100%)
|
0 (0%)
|
1 (50%)
|
|
G3
|
0
|
0
|
1 (100%)
|
0 (0%)
|
*Chi-square analysis was used to compare the frequency among groups. ** Fisher’s Exact
test was used to compare the frequency among groups. N: number, G: grade, R: right,
LT: left, TTJ: tibiotalar joint (ankle joint), SH: synovial hypertrophy, TNJ: Talonavicular
joint, MTP: metatarsophalangeal joint, Significance was considered when P value is
≤0.05.
Significant differences were found between fallers and non- fallers as regards erosions
at the Rt. ankle joint, Lt. talonavicular joint and Lt 1st and 2nd MTP joint. P value (0.025, 0.037, 0.020 and 0.006) respectively. Berg balance
test had the most fall predicting power (71.3%), followed by gait speed test and restricted
ROM of the Rt. Subtalar joint with predictive power of 70.3% both [Table 4].
Table 4 Independent Predictors of Falling: Multivariable Logistic Regression.
|
Factor
|
OR
|
95% CI*
|
P-value
|
Predictive Power
|
|
Age/years
|
1.038
|
1.003–1.074
|
0.033
|
58.2%
|
|
Disease Duration/years
|
1.107
|
1.037–1.182
|
0.002
|
66.3%
|
|
Disease Activity (High)
|
2.109
|
1.021–4.254
|
0.021
|
61.4%
|
|
Muscle Power
|
|
Weak Rt. Ankle J dorsal flexors & planter flexors.
|
7.389
|
2.420–15.741
|
0.001
|
68.1%
|
|
Weak Rt. Subtalar Ever. & Inv.
|
5.628
|
1.686–11.954
|
0.002
|
66.3%
|
|
Weak Lt. Ankle J dorsiflexors & plantar flexors.
|
3.358
|
1.168–9.813
|
0.025
|
62.4%
|
|
Weak Lt. Subtalar Ever. & Inv.
|
4.144
|
1.394–12.727
|
0.013
|
63.4%
|
|
Weak Toe Strength
|
6.193
|
2.064–18.577
|
0.001
|
67.3%
|
|
ROM
|
|
Restricted Rt. Ankle
|
6.090
|
2.168–17.108
|
0.001
|
68.3%
|
|
Restricted Rt. Subtalar j
|
9.500
|
2.929–20.809
|
<0.001
|
70.3%
|
|
Restricted Lt. Ankle
|
4.385
|
1.689–11.383
|
0.002
|
66.3%
|
|
Restricted Lt. Sub. T
|
8.833
|
2.364–23.001
|
0.001
|
67.3%
|
|
Foot Type
|
|
Normal
|
1
|
|
0.003
|
|
|
Flatfoot
|
5.667
|
1.415–12.691
|
0.014
|
68.3%
|
|
High Arched Foot
|
8.500
|
1.713–22.196
|
0.009
|
|
|
Ankle & Toe Deformity
|
|
Hammer Toe
|
3.189
|
1.129–7.593
|
0.014
|
58.1%
|
|
Gait Speed Test (Speed)
|
0.203
|
0.069–0.589
|
0.004
|
70.3%
|
|
HAQ-DI
|
1.684
|
1.032–2.748
|
0.037
|
63.4%
|
|
Tinetti Balance Test
|
|
Moderate fall Risk
|
3.263
|
1.252–8.499
|
0.015
|
69.4%
|
|
Berg Balance Test
|
|
Mild fall Risk
|
1
|
|
<0.001
|
|
|
Medium all Risk
|
3.455
|
1.286–9.289
|
0.014
|
71.3%
|
|
High fall Risk
|
16.00
|
6.889–38.126
|
<0.001
|
|
|
Sonographic Data
|
|
Lt. TNJ Erosion
|
3.030
|
1.035–8.870
|
0.043
|
61.4%
|
|
Lt. 1st MTP Erosion
|
5.838
|
1.173–19.059
|
0.031
|
62.6%
|
|
Lt. Extensor Tenosynovitis
|
2.710
|
1.018–7.213
|
0.046
|
55.2%
|
*OR=Odds Ratio, CI= Confidence Interval. Rt: right, Lt: Left; Ever: Evertors, Inv: Invertors, HAQ-DI: Health assessment questionnaire-disability
index, TNJ: Talonavicular joint; MTP: Metatarsophalangeal, Significance was considered
when P value is ≤0.05
[Table 5] shows that among all the defined predictors of fall, the most accurate predictors
were Berg balance test, Tenitti balance test and gait speed test with area under the
curve (0.786, 0.778 and 0.748) respectively. On the other hand, of all the sonographic
findings, erosion of the 1st MTP joint was the most accurate predictor of fall followed by erosion of the Talonavicular
joint and tenosynovitis of the ankle dorsal flexors(extensors) with area under curve
(AUC) of 0.656, 0.642 and 0.614 respectively [Fig. 1].
Fig. 1 Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of Sonographic findings as Falling
Predictorsin RA patients. Lt. Left, TNJ Talonavicular joint, MTP metatarsophalangeal
joint, Extensor tenosynovitis dorsiflexors tenosynovitis..
Table 5 Sensitivity and specificity of Different fall predictors in the study population.
|
AUC
|
Accuracy
|
Sensitivity
|
Specificity
|
PPV
|
NPV
|
|
Clinical Finding
|
|
Disease Duration (7.5 y)
|
0.690
|
70%
|
72%
|
67%
|
69%
|
71%
|
|
Muscle Power
|
|
Weak Rt. Ankle dorsal flexors & planter flexors
|
0.653
|
63%
|
65%
|
61%
|
62.5%
|
63.5%
|
|
Weak Rt. Subtalar Ever. & Inv.
|
0.633
|
62.5%
|
67%
|
58%
|
61.5%
|
64%
|
|
Weak Toe Strength
|
0.644
|
68.5%
|
72%
|
65%
|
67%
|
70%
|
|
ROM
|
|
Restricted Rt. Ankle
|
0.658
|
71%
|
77%
|
65%
|
69%
|
74%
|
|
Restricted Rt. Subtalar
|
0.675
|
83%
|
87%
|
73%
|
75.5%
|
81%
|
|
Restricted Lt. Ankle
|
0.640
|
65%
|
69%
|
61%
|
64%
|
66%
|
|
Restricted Lt. Subtalar
|
0.640
|
65%
|
69%
|
61%
|
64%
|
66%
|
|
Ankle and Foot Characters
|
|
Foot Type
|
0.657
|
72.5%
|
79%
|
66%
|
70%
|
76%
|
|
Hammer Toe
|
0.619
|
63.5%
|
68%
|
59%
|
62%
|
65%
|
|
Diagnostic Scales and Questionnaires
|
|
Gait Speed Test
|
0.748
|
70%
|
73%
|
67%
|
69%
|
71%
|
|
HAQ-DI
|
0.653
|
62%
|
62%
|
62.5%
|
62%
|
62%
|
|
Tinetti balance test
|
0.778
|
70.5%
|
80%
|
61%
|
67%
|
75%
|
|
Berg balance test
|
0.786
|
84%
|
89%
|
79%
|
81%
|
88%
|
|
Sonographic Parameters
|
|
Lt. TNJ Erosion
|
0.642
|
70.5%
|
77%
|
64%
|
68%
|
73.5%
|
|
Lt. 1st MTP Erosion
|
0.656
|
72.5%
|
75%
|
70%
|
71.5%
|
73.5%
|
|
Lt. Extensor tenosynovitis
|
0.614
|
64%
|
66%
|
62%
|
63.5%
|
64.5%
|
*Sensitivity (true positives/all diseased); specificity (true negatives/all non-diseased);
PPV (true positives/all test positives); NPV (true negatives/all test negatives).
AUC: area under curve, PPV: Positive predictive value, NPV: Negative predictive value;
Rt: right. Lt: Left, Ever: Evertors, Inv: Invertors, HAQ-DI: Health assessment questionnaire-disability
index, TNJ: Talonavicular joint; MTP: Metatarsophalageal joint
Discussion
Falling is a global problem with multiple health and economic consequences. Compared
to healthy population, rheumatoid patients were found to have a higher fall risk [22]. Among the adverse effects of falling in Rheumatoid population are the reduction
in the quality of life in addition to increased rates of morbidity and mortality [23].
Although the use of MSUS in detecting foot pathology was suggested as a predictor
of patient reported foot related future disability [24], sonographic examination of RA patients concentrated on assessing wrist and hand
joints with very few studies [25]
[26] investigated the feet and ankles, generally on symptomatic ones.
In our study, 44.6% of the studied patients gave positive history of falling within
the last year. This was in agreement with what was reported by Brenton-Rule et al.
[22] who found the prevalence of fall in RA to range between 10%−54%. The age of fallers
was significantly higher than that of non–fallers. This is self-explanatory because
of the direct relation between age and both sarcopenia and dynapenia where some authors
reported that after the age of 50, there was continuous muscle loss by about 1–2%
per year [27]
[28]. The role of the age as a key risk factor of falls was documented in the studies
done on the elderly [1]
[29] but not on RA patients [23]
[30]
[31]
[32].
Disease duration in this study was significantly higher in the fallers than in non-fallers
(P value=0.001). This is contrary to Hayashibara et al. [30] who found no significant differences between fallers and non-fallers in disease
duration.
Most of non-fallers (73.2%) in the current study were having moderate disease activity
while 60% of fallers had high disease activity. The association between high disease
activity and fall risk was previously reported [23]
[32].
Fallers in the current study showed impaired balance status with high fall risk compared
to the non-fallers (P<0.001). In agreement with this finding, Rome et al. [33] reported that patients with RA experience difficulty in posture controlling during
performing activities of daily livings compared to healthy population.
Higher disability index was reported among the faller group in this study compared
to non-fallers group (P=0.009). Functional disability detected by HAQ-DI was previously
delineated by many investigators as a fall risk factor in RA patients [2]
[34]
[35].
The speed of the faller’s gait was significantly slower than that of the non-fallers
(P value <0.001). This is in concordance with Lusa et al. [36] who found that RA patients had low mean gait speed and reported several contributing
factors including older age, high swollen joint count, depression, high prednisone
dose and non-treatment with diseases modifying drugs. Furthermore, Fallers and non-fallers
in this study had median gait speed value lower than 1.4 m/sec which is required speed
for independent outdoor ambulation [37]. This gives the impression that all RA patients are at risk of falling whether they
had experienced previous fall or not.
As regards the clinical examination of foot and ankle, feet of the fallers in the
current study showed more muscle weakness, restricted ROM than those of non-fallers.
The association between musculoskeletal problems and fall risk was reported by several
population- based studies [38]
[39]
[40]. Nearly the same was reports in patients with RA where muscle weakness and joint
pain and stiffness were found to be considerable risk factors of falls [34]
[41].
In the current study, there were significant differences between the fallers and non-
fallers as regards the erosion of the 1st MTP, 2nd MTP, and talonavicular joint (TNJ) in addition to effusion of the ankle joint. Furthermore,
tenosynovitis were found to be significantly different between the 2 groups on the
level of the ankle plantar flexors and dorsal flexors but not on the level of peroneal
tendons.
As regards joint changes in this study, synovial hypertrophy of the TNJ was the most
common finding. The number of affected TNJ in the non-fallers was higher than that
in fallers, similar finding was detected at the level of 2nd MTP joint. This could be due to the high ability of MSUS to detect subclinical synovitis
even in asymptomatic joint. In agreement with our findings, the cross sectional study
of Petterle et al. [42] who demonstrated that ultrasonography could detect subclinical changes in asymptomatic
ankles and feet in both RA and healthy control groups and that the TNJ was the most
affected joint.
Regarding tendon abnormality, tenosynovitis of the peroneal tendons in the study population
was the most common sonographic finding. In accordance with our finding, Lehtinen
et al. [43] reported that ankle and subtalar synovitis were the commonest joints abnormality
detected followed by peroneal tenosynovitis.
Using the multiple regression analysis, we found that the most predictive factor of
fall was the Berg balance scale (BBS) with predictive power of (71.3%), followed by
gait speed and restricted subtalar ROM with predictive power of (70.3%) each.
In contrast to our findings, Lima et al. [44] in their systematic review found conflicting results as regards the cutoff point
of BBS and recommended against its use as a fall predictor.
Slow gait was a well-documented, definite predicting factor of falls, functional limitation
and mortality in older people. Van Kan et al. concluded that gait speed in normal
pace can be used as a single item assessment tool of adverse outcomes including falls
[45]. But this was not proved in RA, where some authors postulated that slow gait speed
in RA is protective against falling and that RA patients preferred a slower gait speed
than that of the controls [46].
From all the sonographic features reported in this study, erosion of 1st MTP joint,
erosion of the TNJ and ankle’s extensors tenosynovitis were found to be the predictors
of falls in our studied population with predictive power of (62.6%, 61.4% and 55.2%)
respectively. One study (22) investigated the role of foot pathology as a predictor
of fall in RA patients and concluded that midfoot derangement including the TNJ and
self- reported foot deformity were the predictors.
Sonographic assessment of the 1st MTP joint was included in this study because the role of mechanical forces in the
development of foot pathology in RA patients cannot be rolled out [47]. Ultrasonography investigators had postulated that the initial synovitis of the
MTP joints occurring early in RA is followed and augmented by mechanical loads, and
both factors are incorporated in the development of MTP joint pathology in RA [48].
On using ROC curve to study the sensitivity and specificity of the previously detected
predictors, Berg balance scale (BBS), Tinetti balance test and gait speed test were
the most accurate predictors with area under curve (AUC) of (0.786, 0.778 and 0.748)
respectively. Among the three aforementioned sonographic predictors, erosion at the
1st MTP joint was the most accurate predictor of falls with AUC of (0.656), sensitivity
of (75%) and specificity of (70%). Foot and ankle MSUS failed to show superiority
over the clinical tests in predicting falls in RA patients.
To our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate the ankles and feet MSUS
changes as a predictors of falls in RA patients. This study has some limitations including
the questioned inter observer reliability of the sonographic examination, the cross
sectional nature of the study and the small study sample. A Larger scale longitudinal
study is recommended to confirm the present results and investigate more fall predictors.
Conclusion
In conclusion, depending on the results of the present study, there was no justified
clue to use the MSUS as a prediction tool in RA patients and the clinical balance
tests as Berg balance scale (BBS), Tinetti balance test and gait speed test maintain
their upper hand as fall predictors.
Contributorʼs Statement
-
Eman A M Alkady: Administration, Supervision, Validation and review & editing.
-
Marwa Mahmoud Abdelaziz: Drafting of the submitted protocol and critical revision
of the submitted protocol for important intellectual content, Revision
-
Dalia Abdelwahed: Acquisition of data, Analysis and interpretation of data, Statistical
analysis
-
Safaa Ali Mahran: Conception and design, Critical revision of the submitted protocol
for important intellectual content, and writing the manuscript.
