Classification and Nomenclature: Progressive Collapsing Foot Deformity

Abstract

Recommendation: The historical nomenclature for the adult acquired flatfoot deformity (AAFD) is confusing, at times called posterior tibial tendon dysfunction (PTTD), the adult flexible flatfoot deformity, posterior tibial tendon rupture, peritalar instability and peritalar subluxation (PTS), and progressive talipes equinovalgus. Many but not all of these deformities are associated with a rupture of the posterior tibial tendon (PTT), and some of these are associated with deformities either primarily or secondarily in the midfoot or ankle. There is similar inconsistency with the use of classification schemata for these deformities, and from the first introduced by Johnson and Strom (1989), and then modified by Myerson (1997), there have been many attempts to provide a more comprehensive classification system. However, although these newer more complete classification systems have addressed some of the anatomic variations of deformities encountered, none of the above have ever been validated. The proposed system better incorporates the most recent data and understanding of the condition and better allows for standardization of reporting. In light of this information, the consensus group proposes the adoption of the nomenclature “Progressive Collapsing Foot Deformity” (PCFD) and a new classification system aiming at summarizing recent data published on the subject and to standardize data reporting regarding this complex 3-dimensional deformity. Level of Evidence: Level V, consensus, expert opinion. Consensus Statements Voted: CONSENSUS STATEMENT ONE: We will rename the condition to Progressive Collapsing Foot Deformity (PCFD), a complex 3-dimensional deformity with varying degrees of hindfoot valgus, forefoot abduction, and midfoot varus. Delegate vote: agree, 100% (9/9); disagree, 0%; abstain, 0%. (Unanimous, strongest consensus) CONSENSUS STATEMENT TWO: Our current classification systems are incomplete or outdated. Delegate vote: agree, 100% (9/9); disagree, 0%; abstain, 0%. (Unanimous, strongest consensus) CONSENSUS STATEMENT THREE: MRI findings should be part of a new classification system. Delegate vote: agree, 33% (3/9); disagree, 67% (6/9); abstain, 0%. (Weak negative consensus) CONSENSUS STATEMENT FOUR: Weightbearing CT (WBCT) findings should be part of a new classification system. Delegate vote: agree, 56% (5/9); disagree, 44% (4/9); abstain, 0%. (Weak consensus) CONSENSUS STATEMENT FIVE: A new classification system is proposed and should be used to stage the deformity clinically and to define treatment. Delegate vote: agree, 89% (8/9); abstain, 11% (1/9). (Strong consensus)