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