Skip to main content

Table 3 Comparisons of participants’ characteristics, radiographic measurements, and grades of hallux valgus severity between feet with and without self-recognition about hallux valgus

From: The discrepancy between radiographically-assessed and self-recognized hallux valgus in a large population-based cohort

 

Men

P-value

Women

P-value

Self-recognition

 

Self-recognition

 

Yes (n = 71)

No (n = 1237)

 

Yes (n = 586)

No (n = 2098)

 

Age (years)

67.6 ± 11.2

63.6 ± 13.8

0.0183

65.9 ± 10.6

64.0 ± 12.5

0.0006

Height (cm)

166.1 ± 7.6

167.2 ± 6.6

0.1824

153.0 ± 6.6

153.7 ± 6.3

0.0367

Body weight (kg)

64.6 ± 11.1

66.1 ± 11.1

0.2811

52.6 ± 8.3

52.6 ± 9.2

0.9934

Body mass index (kg/m2)

23.4 ± 3.6

23.6 ± 3.3

0.6486

22.5 ± 3.1

22.3 ± 3.6

0.2934

HVA (degrees)

23.8 ± 9.6

13.8 ± 5.4

<  0.0001

26.0 ± 8.9

15.7 ± 5.9

<  0.0001

IPA (degrees)

12.9 ± 8.7

16.8 ± 4.4

<  0.0001

11.0 ± 7.4

16.0 ± 4.8

<  0.0001

IMA (degrees)

11.3 ± 4.0

7.9 ± 2.2

<  0.0001

11.1 ± 3.3

8.3 ± 2.1

< 0.0001

HV grade (feet [%]a)

 Normal

25 (2.3%)

1067 (97.7%)b

< 0.0001

141 (8.2%)

1570 (91.8%)b

< 0.0001

 Mild

31 (16.5%)b

157 (83.5%)

252 (34.1%)b

488 (65.9%)

 Moderate

9 (41.0%)b

13 (59.0%)

160 (80.0%)b

40 (20.0%)

 Severe

6 (100%)b

0 (0.0%)

33 (100%)b

0 (0.0%)

  1. HVA hallux valgus angle, IPA interphalangeal angle, IMA intermetatarsal angle between 1st and 2nd metatarsals, HV hallux valgus
  2. a Percentage was calculated as a ratio between those with or without self-recognition in each grade of HV severity
  3. bSignificantly higher proportion detected from adjusted residual analysis