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

9Citations
Citations of this article
19Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

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.

References Powered by Scopus

A Guideline of Selecting and Reporting Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for Reliability Research

18245Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

The hindfoot alignment view

607Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Measuring hindfoot alignment radiographically: The long axial view is more reliable than the hindfoot alignment view

169Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Prevalence and pattern of lateral impingements in the progressive collapsing foot deformity

20Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Correction of ankle varus deformity using patient-specific dome-shaped osteotomy guides designed on weight-bearing CT: a pilot study

16Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

3D measurement techniques for the hindfoot alignment angle from weight-bearing CT in a clinical population

12Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Brandenburg, L. S., Siegel, M., Neubauer, J., Merz, J., Bode, G., & Kühle, J. (2022). Measuring standing hindfoot alignment: reliability of different approaches in conventional x-ray and cone-beam CT. Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, 142(11), 3035–3043. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-021-03904-1

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 7

88%

Lecturer / Post doc 1

13%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 4

40%

Earth and Planetary Sciences 4

40%

Business, Management and Accounting 1

10%

Social Sciences 1

10%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free