François Lintz1, Matthew Welck2, Alessio Bernasconi3, James Thornton2, Nicholas P Cullen2, Dishan Singh2, Andy Goldberg2. 1. 1 Clinique de l'Union, Ankle and Foot Surgery Center, Saint-Jean, France. 2. 2 Foot & Ankle Unit, Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital, Stanmore, Middlesex, United Kingdom. 3. 3 Orthopaedics and Traumatology Unit, Department of Public Health, University of Napoli "Federico II," Napoli, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hindfoot alignment on 2D radiographs can present anatomical and operator-related bias. In this study, software designed for weightbearing computed tomography (WBCT) was used to calculate a new 3D biometric tool: the Foot and Ankle Offset (FAO). We described the distribution of FAO in a series of data sets from clinically normal, varus, and valgus cases, hypothesizing that FAO values would be significantly different in the 3 groups. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, 135 data sets (57 normal, 38 varus, 40 valgus) from WBCT (PedCAT; CurveBeam LLC, Warrington, PA) were obtained from a specialized foot and ankle unit. 3D coordinates of specific anatomical landmarks (weightbearing points of the calcaneus, of the first and fifth metatarsal heads and the highest and centermost point on the talar dome) were collected. These data were processed with the TALAS system (CurveBeam), which resulted in an FAO value for each case. Intraobserver and interobserver reliability were also assessed. RESULTS: In normal cases, the mean value for FAO was 2.3% ± 2.9%, whereas in varus and valgus cases, the mean was -11.6% ± 6.9% and 11.4% ± 5.7%, respectively, with a statistically significant difference among groups ( P < .001). The distribution of the normal population was Gaussian. The inter- and intraobserver reliability were 0.99 +/- 0.00 and 0.97 +/-0.02 Conclusions: This pilot study suggests that the FAO is an efficient tool for measuring hindfoot alignment using WBCT. Previously published research in this field has looked at WBCT by adapting 2D biometrics. The present study introduces the concept of 3D biometrics and describes an efficient, semiautomatic tool for measuring hindfoot alignment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.
BACKGROUND: Hindfoot alignment on 2D radiographs can present anatomical and operator-related bias. In this study, software designed for weightbearing computed tomography (WBCT) was used to calculate a new 3D biometric tool: the Foot and Ankle Offset (FAO). We described the distribution of FAO in a series of data sets from clinically normal, varus, and valgus cases, hypothesizing that FAO values would be significantly different in the 3 groups. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, 135 data sets (57 normal, 38 varus, 40 valgus) from WBCT (PedCAT; CurveBeam LLC, Warrington, PA) were obtained from a specialized foot and ankle unit. 3D coordinates of specific anatomical landmarks (weightbearing points of the calcaneus, of the first and fifth metatarsal heads and the highest and centermost point on the talar dome) were collected. These data were processed with the TALAS system (CurveBeam), which resulted in an FAO value for each case. Intraobserver and interobserver reliability were also assessed. RESULTS: In normal cases, the mean value for FAO was 2.3% ± 2.9%, whereas in varus and valgus cases, the mean was -11.6% ± 6.9% and 11.4% ± 5.7%, respectively, with a statistically significant difference among groups ( P < .001). The distribution of the normal population was Gaussian. The inter- and intraobserver reliability were 0.99 +/- 0.00 and 0.97 +/-0.02 Conclusions: This pilot study suggests that the FAO is an efficient tool for measuring hindfoot alignment using WBCT. Previously published research in this field has looked at WBCT by adapting 2D biometrics. The present study introduces the concept of 3D biometrics and describes an efficient, semiautomatic tool for measuring hindfoot alignment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.
Authors: Matthieu Lalevée; Nacime Salomao Barbachan Mansur; Edward O Rojas; Hee Young Lee; Samuel J Ahrenholz; Kevin N Dibbern; François Lintz; Cesar de Cesar Netto Journal: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg Date: 2021-07-02 Impact factor: 3.067
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: 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: 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: Alessio Bernasconi; Cesar DE Cesar; Lauren Roberts; François Lintz; Alexandre Leme Godoy-Santos; Martin Joseph O'Malley Journal: Acta Ortop Bras Date: 2021 May-Jun Impact factor: 0.513