BACKGROUND: The Saltzman-el-Khoury hindfoot alignment view (HAV) is considered the gold standard for assessing the axis from hindfoot to tibia. However, it is unclear whether radiographic alignment influences dynamic load distribution during gait. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We evaluated varus-valgus alignment by the HAV and its influence on dynamic load distribution in ankle and tibiotalocalcaneal (TTC) arthrodesis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We clinically assessed 98 patients (ankle, 56; TTC, 42) with SF-36 and American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) scores, visual hindfoot alignment, HAV angle, and dynamic pedobarography using a five-step method. For comparison, 70 normal feet were evaluated. Minimum followup was 2 years (average, 4.11 years; range, 2-6 years). RESULTS: The mean HAV angle was -0.8° ± 7.8° for ankle and -1.2° ± 6.9° for TTC arthrodesis. The HAV angle correlated with pedobarographic load distribution (r = 0.35-0.53). Radiographic alignment did not influence SF-36 or AOFAS scores; however, load distribution correlated to qualities of these scores. Visual alignment only predicted the corresponding HAV angle in 48%. To reproduce the dynamic load of healthy subjects, HAV angles of 5° to 10° valgus were needed. CONCLUSIONS: Visual positioning is inadequate to determine intraoperative positioning and resulted in a varus position with a relatively large SD. The HAV should be used to assess the hindfoot alignment correctly. HAV angles of 5° to 10° valgus are needed to reproduce a physiologic gait pattern.
BACKGROUND: The Saltzman-el-Khoury hindfoot alignment view (HAV) is considered the gold standard for assessing the axis from hindfoot to tibia. However, it is unclear whether radiographic alignment influences dynamic load distribution during gait. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We evaluated varus-valgus alignment by the HAV and its influence on dynamic load distribution in ankle and tibiotalocalcaneal (TTC) arthrodesis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We clinically assessed 98 patients (ankle, 56; TTC, 42) with SF-36 and American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) scores, visual hindfoot alignment, HAV angle, and dynamic pedobarography using a five-step method. For comparison, 70 normal feet were evaluated. Minimum followup was 2 years (average, 4.11 years; range, 2-6 years). RESULTS: The mean HAV angle was -0.8° ± 7.8° for ankle and -1.2° ± 6.9° for TTC arthrodesis. The HAV angle correlated with pedobarographic load distribution (r = 0.35-0.53). Radiographic alignment did not influence SF-36 or AOFAS scores; however, load distribution correlated to qualities of these scores. Visual alignment only predicted the corresponding HAV angle in 48%. To reproduce the dynamic load of healthy subjects, HAV angles of 5° to 10° valgus were needed. CONCLUSIONS: Visual positioning is inadequate to determine intraoperative positioning and resulted in a varus position with a relatively large SD. The HAV should be used to assess the hindfoot alignment correctly. HAV angles of 5° to 10° valgus are needed to reproduce a physiologic gait pattern.