Top

Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery

Published in:

Open Access 22-04-2021 | Conventional X-Ray | Orthopaedic Surgery

Measuring standing hindfoot alignment: reliability of different approaches in conventional x-ray and cone-beam CT

Authors: Leonard Simon Brandenburg, Markus Siegel, Jakob Neubauer, Johanna Merz, Gerrit Bode, Jan Kühle

Published in: Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery | Issue 11/2022

Abstract

Introduction

Currently there is no consensus how hindfoot alignment (HA) should be assessed in CBCT scans. The aim of this study is to investigate how the reliability is affected by the anatomical structures chosen for the measurement.

Materials and methods

Datasets consisting of a Saltzman View (SV) and a CBCT of the same foot were acquired prospectively and independently assessed by five raters regarding HA. In SVs the HA was estimated as follows: transversal shift between tibial shaft axis and heel contact point (1); angle between tibial shaft axis and a tangent at the medial (2) or lateral (3) calcaneal wall. In CBCT the HA was estimated as follows: transversal shift between the centre of the talus and the heel contact point (4); angle between a perpendicular line and a tangent at the medial (5) or lateral (6) calcaneal wall; angle between the distal tibial surface and a tangent at the medial calcaneal wall (7). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated to assess inter-rater reliability. A linear regression was performed to compare the different measurement regarding their correlation.

Results

32 patients were included in the study. The ICCs for the measurements 1–7 were as follows: (1) 0.924 [95% CI 0.876–0.959] (2) 0.533 [95% CI 0.377–0.692], (3) 0.553 [95% CI 0.399–0.708], (4) 0.930 [95% CI 0.866–0.962], (5) 0.00 [95% CI − 0.111 to 0.096], (6) 0.00 [95% CI − 0.103 to 0.111], (7) 0.152 [95% CI 0.027–0.330]. A linear regression between measurement 1 and 4 showed a correlation of 0.272 (p = 0.036).

Conclusions

It could be shown that reliability of measuring HA depends on the investigated anatomical structure. Placing a tangent along the calcaneus (2, 3, 5, 6, 7) was shown to be unreliable, whereas determining the weight-bearing heel point (1, 4) appeared to be a reliable approach. The correlation of the measurement workflows is significant (p = 0.036), but too weak (0.272) to be used clinically.

Reilingh ML, Beimers L, Tuijthof GJM et al (2010) Measuring hindfoot alignment radiographically: the long axial view is more reliable than the hindfoot alignment view. Skelet Radiol 39:1103–1108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-009-0857-9CrossRef

Krämer J, Grifka J (2007) Orthopädie Unfallchirurgie, 8th edn. Springer, HeidelbergCrossRef

Hintermann B, Knupp M, Barg A (2008) Korrekturosteotomien am distalen Unterschenkel und Rückfuß. Orthopäde 37:212–223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00132-008-1214-8CrossRefPubMed

Richter M, Lintz F, de Cesar NC et al (2019) Results of more than 11,000 scans with weightbearing CT—impact on costs, radiation exposure, and procedure time. Foot Ankle Surg. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fas.2019.05.019CrossRefPubMed

Neri T, Barthelemy R, Tourné Y (2017) Radiologic analysis of hindfoot alignment: comparison of Méary, long axial, and hindfoot alignment views. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 103:1211–1216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2017.08.014CrossRefPubMed

Burssens A, Peeters J, Buedts K et al (2016) Measuring hindfoot alignment in weight bearing CT: a novel clinical relevant measurement method. Foot Ankle Surg 22:233–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fas.2015.10.002CrossRefPubMed

Buck FM, Hoffmann A, Mamisch-Saupe N et al (2011) Hindfoot alignment measurements: rotation-stability of measurement techniques on hindfoot alignment view and long axial view radiographs. Am J Roentgenol 197:578–582. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.10.5728CrossRef

Baverel L, Brilhault J, Odri G et al (2017) Influence of lower limb rotation on hindfoot alignment using a conventional two-dimensional radiographic technique. Foot Ankle Surg 23:44–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fas.2016.02.003CrossRefPubMed

Cobey JC (1976) Posterior roentgenogram of the foot. Clin Orthop Relat Res 202–207

10.

Haight HJ, Dahm DL, Smith J, Krause DA (2005) Measuring standing hindfoot alignment: reliability of goniometric and visual measurements. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 86:571–575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2004.05.014CrossRefPubMed

11.

Richter M, Seidl B, Zech S, Hahn S (2014) PedCAT for 3D-imaging in standing position allows for more accurate bone position (angle) measurement than radiographs or CT. Foot Ankle Surg 20:201–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fas.2014.04.004CrossRefPubMed

12.

Neubauer J, Benndorf M, Ehritt-Braun C et al (2018) Comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of cone beam computed tomography and radiography for scaphoid fractures. Sci Rep 8:3906. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-22331-8CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Pugmire BS, Shailam R, Sagar P et al (2016) Initial clinical experience with extremity cone-beam CT of the foot and ankle in pediatric patients. Am J Roentgenol 206:431–435. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.15.15099CrossRef

14.

Williamson ERC, Chan JY, Burket JC et al (2014) New radiographic parameter assessing hindfoot alignment in stage II adult-acquired flatfoot deformity. Foot Ankle Int. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071100714558846CrossRefPubMed

15.

de Cesar NC, Shakoor D, Roberts L et al (2018) Hindfoot alignment of adult acquired flatfoot deformity: a comparison of clinical assessment and weightbearing cone beam CT examinations. Foot Ankle Surg. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fas.2018.10.008CrossRef

16.

Hirschmann A, Pfirrmann CWA, Klammer G et al (2013) Upright cone CT of the hindfoot: comparison of the non-weight-bearing with the upright weight-bearing position. Eur Radiol 24:553–558. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-3028-2CrossRefPubMed

17.

Lintz F, Welck M, Bernasconi A et al (2017) 3D biometrics for hindfoot alignment using weightbearing CT. Foot Ankle Int 38:684–689. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071100717690806CrossRefPubMed

18.

Zhang JZ, Lintz F, Bernasconi A, Zhang S (2019) 3D biometrics for hindfoot alignment using weightbearing computed tomography. Foot Ankle Int 40:720–726. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071100719835492CrossRefPubMed

19.

(2012) IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 21. IBM Corp., Armonk, NY

20.

Koo TK, Li MY (2016) A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med 15:155–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Saltzman CL, El-Khoury GY (1995) The hindfoot alignment view. Foot Ankle Int 16:572–576. https://doi.org/10.1177/107110079501600911CrossRefPubMed

22.

Ricci PM, Boldini M, Bonfante E et al (2019) Cone-beam computed tomography compared to X-ray in diagnosis of extremities bone fractures: a study of 198 cases. Eur J Radiol Open 6:119–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejro.2019.01.009CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Koivisto J, Kiljunen T, Kadesjö N et al (2015) Effective radiation dose of a MSCT, two CBCT and one conventional radiography device in the ankle region. J Foot Ankle Res 8:8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13047-015-0067-8CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Aumüller G, Aust G, Doll A (2010) Duale Reihe Anatomie. Georg Thieme Verlag, Stuttgart

25.

Dagneaux L, Moroney P, Maestro M (2019) Reliability of hindfoot alignment measurements from standard radiographs using the methods of Meary and Saltzman. Foot Ankle Surg 25:237–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fas.2017.10.018CrossRefPubMed

Title: Measuring standing hindfoot alignment: reliability of different approaches in conventional x-ray and cone-beam CT
Authors: Leonard Simon Brandenburg
Markus Siegel
Jakob Neubauer
Johanna Merz
Gerrit Bode
Jan Kühle
Publication date: 22-04-2021
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keyword: Conventional X-Ray
Published in: Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery / Issue 11/2022
Print ISSN: 0936-8051
Electronic ISSN: 1434-3916
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-021-03904-1

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Measuring standing hindfoot alignment: reliability of different approaches in conventional x-ray and cone-beam CT

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 11/2022

Direct anterior approach improves in-hospital mobility following hemiarthroplasty for femoral neck fracture treatment

Should the location of distal tibial plating be influenced by the varus or valgus fracture pattern of tibial pilon fracture?

Reconstruction or replacement? A challenging question in surgical treatment of complex humeral head fractures in the elderly

Trabecular titanium cups in acetabular revision arthroplasty: analysis of 10-year survivorship, restoration of center of rotation and osteointegration

Talus morphology differs between flatfeet and controls, but its variety has no influence on extent of surgical deformity correction

There is no difference in the complication or re-operation rates between tension band wiring and locking plate fixation for olecranon fractures. The findings of a multicentre study