A comparison of the Musgrave Footprint and optical pedobarograph systems for measuring dynamic foot pressures in diabetic patients

Abstract

The dynamic foot pressures of 21 diabetic patients mean age 55.4 (range 50–68) years, duration of diabetes 21 (9–40) years, 16 with clinical neuropathy, 5 with no evidence of peripheral neuropathy, were measured on the optical pedobarograph (OPG) and Musgrave foot pressure systems. The results were; OPG versus Musgrave in each region: Great toe (mean±sem) 6.16±0.80 kg cm −2 vs 6.44±0.83 kg cm −2 (p=NS), r=0.64 p<0.01. First metatarsal head (MTH) 8.0±0.89 kg cm −2 vs 5.9±0.36 kg cm −2 (p<0.01), r=0.36 p=NS. Fifth MTH 7.1±0.94 kg cm −2 vs 4.75±0.54 kg cm −2 (p=<0.01), r=0.16 p=NS. Heel 6.1±0.66 kg cm −2 vs 5.2±0.63 kg cm −2 (p=NS), r=0.42 p<0.03. The within patient coefficient of variation was 10.2% for the OPG and 11.2% for the Musgrave at the first MTH and 7.8% and 14.5% at the heel. In low pressure areas the two systems gave comparable results. Both systems identified high pressure areas but disparity was seen in the MTH pressures, probably because the Musgrave system measures a maximum of 15 kg cm −2 compared with pressures of over 25 kg cm −2 measured with the OPG, and the Musgrave has a load measuring element of a relatively large size. In conclusion, both systems have relative advantages and disadvantages and can be recommended for routine clinical use but the Musgrave may have limitations in patients with very high foot pressures.