Claudio Carrara1, Paolo Caravaggi2, Claudio Belvedere2, Alberto Leardini2. 1. Movement Analysis Laboratory, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Bologna 40136, Italy. Electronic address: clacar.92@gmail.com. 2. Movement Analysis Laboratory, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Bologna 40136, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: For the diagnosis and treatment of the foot and ankle, bone alignments have long been evaluated using planar radiographs in weight-bearing conditions and a large number of measurements have been reported. The present survey reviews the major radiographic angles that are currently present in the literature for a possible better comprehension and classification of them. METHODS: PubMed and Google Scholar were used to retrieve technical and clinical papers related to these angles, and were classified based on five typologies and the three projection planes. These angles were grouped into one definition if they described similar concepts, regardless of their anatomical references and names. A corresponding original definition and diagrammatic representation are offered. RESULTS: Thirty-one conceptual radiographic angles were identified across all descriptions from the literature: 18 in the sagittal plane, 9 in the transverse, and 4 in the coronal. Most angular measures represent relative bone orientations; absolute orientations, bone morphology and joint lines are less frequently used or reported. CONCLUSIONS: The present survey reveals a confused scenario of angular measures, particularly in terms of anatomical references and names. It is therefore recommended to establish common relevant techniques and terminology.
BACKGROUND: For the diagnosis and treatment of the foot and ankle, bone alignments have long been evaluated using planar radiographs in weight-bearing conditions and a large number of measurements have been reported. The present survey reviews the major radiographic angles that are currently present in the literature for a possible better comprehension and classification of them. METHODS: PubMed and Google Scholar were used to retrieve technical and clinical papers related to these angles, and were classified based on five typologies and the three projection planes. These angles were grouped into one definition if they described similar concepts, regardless of their anatomical references and names. A corresponding original definition and diagrammatic representation are offered. RESULTS: Thirty-one conceptual radiographic angles were identified across all descriptions from the literature: 18 in the sagittal plane, 9 in the transverse, and 4 in the coronal. Most angular measures represent relative bone orientations; absolute orientations, bone morphology and joint lines are less frequently used or reported. CONCLUSIONS: The present survey reveals a confused scenario of angular measures, particularly in terms of anatomical references and names. It is therefore recommended to establish common relevant techniques and terminology.