BACKGROUND: Up to 60% of patients with an osteoarthritic ankle joint develop talar tilt with progression of the osteoarthritic process. The configuration of the subtalar joint, in particular the posterior facet, may contribute to the development of this wear pattern. Recently, the subtalar vertical angle (SVA) was used to describe the posterior facet of the subtalar joint in the frontal plane. The aim of this work was to analyze if the orientation of the subtalar joint may influence the type of asymmetric ankle osteoarthritis. METHODS: In total, 60 ankles were retrospectively analyzed including 40 osteoarthritic patients and 20 healthy controls. The osteoarthritic ankles were divided into 4 groups: varus ankle joints with (incongruent) or without (congruent) a tilted talus and valgus ankle joints with (incongruent) or without (congruent) a tilted talus. The orientation of the subtalar joint was described using the SVA. The SVA was determined for every patient using weightbearing CT scans. Additionally, the inter- and intraobserver reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). RESULTS: The inter- and intraobserver reliability was excellent (ICC > 0.989 and >0.975, respectively). The varus groups (incongruent and congruent) had significantly lower SVA values, that is, more varus orientation of the subtalar joint than the valgus groups (P < .05). The SVA of the control group was between the values of the varus and valgus ankles. CONCLUSION: The SVA provided a reliable and consistent method to assess the varus/valgus configuration of the posterior facet of the subtalar joint. In our cohort, varus osteoarthritis of the ankle joint occurred with varus orientation of the subtalar joint whereas in patients with valgus osteoarthritis, valgus orientation of the subtalar joint was found. Our data suggest that the subtalar joint orientation may be a risk factor for the development of ankle joint osteoarthritis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective case control study.
BACKGROUND: Up to 60% of patients with an osteoarthritic ankle joint develop talar tilt with progression of the osteoarthritic process. The configuration of the subtalar joint, in particular the posterior facet, may contribute to the development of this wear pattern. Recently, the subtalar vertical angle (SVA) was used to describe the posterior facet of the subtalar joint in the frontal plane. The aim of this work was to analyze if the orientation of the subtalar joint may influence the type of asymmetric ankle osteoarthritis. METHODS: In total, 60 ankles were retrospectively analyzed including 40 osteoarthritic patients and 20 healthy controls. The osteoarthritic ankles were divided into 4 groups: varus ankle joints with (incongruent) or without (congruent) a tilted talus and valgus ankle joints with (incongruent) or without (congruent) a tilted talus. The orientation of the subtalar joint was described using the SVA. The SVA was determined for every patient using weightbearing CT scans. Additionally, the inter- and intraobserver reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). RESULTS: The inter- and intraobserver reliability was excellent (ICC > 0.989 and >0.975, respectively). The varus groups (incongruent and congruent) had significantly lower SVA values, that is, more varus orientation of the subtalar joint than the valgus groups (P < .05). The SVA of the control group was between the values of the varus and valgus ankles. CONCLUSION: The SVA provided a reliable and consistent method to assess the varus/valgus configuration of the posterior facet of the subtalar joint. In our cohort, varus osteoarthritis of the ankle joint occurred with varus orientation of the subtalar joint whereas in patients with valgus osteoarthritis, valgus orientation of the subtalar joint was found. Our data suggest that the subtalar joint orientation may be a risk factor for the development of ankle joint osteoarthritis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective case control study.
Authors: Nicola Krähenbühl; Travis L Bailey; Angela P Presson; Chelsea McCarty Allen; Heath B Henninger; Charles L Saltzman; Alexej Barg Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2019-02-11 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: A Burssens; J Peeters; M Peiffer; R Marien; T Lenaerts; G Vandeputte; J Victor Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2018-03-09 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: Nicola Krähenbühl; Amy L Lenz; Rich Lisonbee; Manja Deforth; Lukas Zwicky; Beat Hintermann; Charles L Saltzman; Andrew E Anderson; Alexej Barg Journal: J Orthop Res Date: 2019-02-12 Impact factor: 3.494
Authors: Edward O Rojas; Nacime Salomao Barbachan Mansur; Kevin Dibbern; Matthieu Lalevee; Elijah Auch; Eli Schmidt; Victoria Vivtcharenko; Shuyuan Li; Phinit Phisitkul; John Femino; Cesar de Cesar Netto Journal: Iowa Orthop J Date: 2021
Authors: Molly A Day; Michael Ho; Kevin Dibbern; Karan Rao; Qiang An; Donald D Anderson; J Lawrence Marsh Journal: Foot Ankle Int Date: 2020-07-10 Impact factor: 2.827
Authors: Alexandre Leme Godoy-Santos; Alessio Bernasconi; Marcelo Bordalo-Rodrigues; François Lintz; Carlos Felipe Teixeira Lôbo; Cesar de Cesar Netto Journal: Radiol Bras Date: 2021 May-Jun
Authors: Arne B M Burssens; Kris Buedts; Alexej Barg; Elizabeth Vluggen; Patrick Demey; Charles L Saltzman; Jan M K Victor Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2020-01 Impact factor: 4.755
Authors: Roeland P Kleipool; Sjoerd A S Stufkens; Jari Dahmen; Gwendolyn Vuurberg; Geert J Streekstra; Johannes G G Dobbe; Leendert Blankevoort; Markus Knupp Journal: J Orthop Res Date: 2021-05-12 Impact factor: 3.102
Authors: Nicola Krähenbühl; Amy L Lenz; Rich J Lisonbee; Andrew C Peterson; Penny R Atkins; Beat Hintermann; Charles L Saltzman; Andrew E Anderson; Alexej Barg Journal: J Orthop Res Date: 2020-09-07 Impact factor: 3.494