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

Mikel L Reilingh, Lijkele Beimers, Gabriëlle J M Tuijthof, Sjoerd A S Stufkens, Mario Maas, C Niek van Dijk, Mikel L Reilingh, Lijkele Beimers, Gabriëlle J M Tuijthof, Sjoerd A S Stufkens, Mario Maas, C Niek van Dijk

Abstract

Background: Hindfoot malalignment is a recognized cause of foot and ankle disability. For preoperative planning and clinical follow-up, reliable radiographic assessment of hindfoot alignment is important. The long axial radiographic view and the hindfoot alignment view are commonly used for this purpose. However, their comparative reliabilities are unknown. As hindfoot varus or valgus malalignment is most pronounced during mid-stance of gait, a unilateral weight-bearing stance, in comparison with a bilateral stance, could increase measurement reliability. The purpose of this study was to compare the intra- and interobserver reliability of hindfoot alignment measurements of both radiographic views in bilateral and unilateral stance.

Materials and methods: A hindfoot alignment view and a long axial view were acquired from 18 healthy volunteers in bilateral and unilateral weight-bearing stances. Hindfoot alignment was defined as the angular deviation between the tibial anatomical axis and the calcaneus longitudinal axis from the radiographs. Repeat measurements of hindfoot alignment were performed by nine orthopaedic examiners.

Results: Measurements from the hindfoot alignment view gave intra- and interclass correlation coefficients (CCs) of 0.72 and 0.58, respectively, for bilateral stance and 0.91 and 0.49, respectively, for unilateral stance. The long axial view showed, respectively, intra- and interclass CCs of 0.93 and 0.79 for bilateral stance and 0.91 and 0.58 for unilateral stance.

Conclusion: The long axial view is more reliable than the hindfoot alignment view or the angular measurement of hindfoot alignment. Although intra-observer reliability is good/excellent for both methods, only the long axial view leads to good interobserver reliability. A unilateral weight-bearing stance does not lead to greater reliability of measurement.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
a The hindfoot alignment view. The inclination angle of the beam is 20° to the floor. The film cassette is perpendicular to the central beam of the radiation source. b A random example of a radiograph showing the hindfoot alignment view
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
a The long axial view. The film cassette is lying on the floor and the subject is standing on the film cassette. The inclination angle of the beam is 45° to the floor. b A random example of a radiograph showing the long axial view
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Measurement method for the hindfoot alignment view. We defined the mid-diaphyseal axis of the tibia by bisecting the tibia into two mid-diaphyseal points (lines A and B) 30 mm apart and extending the line distally (line E). The mid-diaphyseal axis of the calcaneus is defined by a line through two points in the calcaneus. At a distance of 7 mm from the most distal part of the calcaneus, a horizontal line is drawn (line D). Line D is divided into a 40%:60% ratio, where the length of the 40% line is measured from the lateral side. A second line (line C) is drawn horizontally, 20 mm from the most distal part of the calcaneus. The calcaneus axis (line F) is drawn by connecting the 40% mark at line D and the bisected line C. The hindfoot angle (G) is the angle between lines E and F
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Measurement method for the long axial view. We defined the mid-diaphyseal axis of the tibia by bisecting the tibia into two mid-diaphyseal points (lines A and B) 30 mm apart and extending the line distally (line E). The mid-diaphyseal axis of the calcaneus is defined by a line through two points in the calcaneus. At a distance of 7 mm from the most distal part of the calcaneus, a horizontal line is drawn (line D). Line D is divided into a 40%:60% ratio, where the length of the 40% line is measured from the lateral side. A second line (line C) is drawn horizontally, 30 mm from the most distal part of the calcaneus. The calcaneus axis (line F) is drawn by connecting the 40% mark at line D and the bisected line C. The hindfoot angle (G) is the angle between lines E and F

References

    1. Hayashi K, Tanaka Y, Kumai T, Sugimoto K, Takakura Y. Correlation of compensatory alignment of the subtalar joint to the progression of primary osteoarthritis of the ankle. Foot Ankle Int. 2008;29:400–406. doi: 10.3113/FAI.2008.0400.
    1. Takakura Y, Takaoka T, Tanaka Y, Yajima H, Tamai S. Results of opening-wedge osteotomy for the treatment of a post-traumatic varus deformity of the ankle. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 1998;80:213–218.
    1. Hintermann B, Knupp M, Barg A. Osteotomies of the distal tibia and hindfoot for ankle realignment. Orthopade. 2008;37:212–213. doi: 10.1007/s00132-008-1214-8.
    1. Stamatis ED, Myerson MS. Supramalleolar osteotomy: indications and technique. Foot Ankle Clin. 2003;8:317–333. doi: 10.1016/S1083-7515(03)00018-4.
    1. Tanaka Y, Takakura Y, Hayashi K, Taniguchi A, Kumai T, Sugimoto K. Low tibial osteotomy for varus-type osteoarthritis of the ankle. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006;88:909–913. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.E.00472.
    1. Stamatis ED, Cooper PS, Myerson MS. Supramalleolar osteotomy for the treatment of distal tibial angular deformities and arthritis of the ankle joint. Foot Ankle Int. 2003;24:754–764.
    1. Sen C, Kocaoglu M, Eralp L, Cinar M. Correction of ankle and hindfoot deformities by supramalleolar osteotomy. Foot Ankle Int. 2003;24:22–28.
    1. Trnka HJ, Easley ME, Myerson MS. The role of calcaneal osteotomies for correction of adult flatfoot. Clin Orthop. 1999;365:50–64. doi: 10.1097/00003086-199908000-00007.
    1. Dierauer S, Schafer D, Hefti F. Osteotomies of the mid- and back-foot in recurrent club foot. Orthopade. 1999;28:117–124.
    1. Catanzariti AR, Mendicino RW, King GL, Neerings B. Double calcaneal osteotomy: realignment considerations in eight patients. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2005;95:53–59.
    1. Johnson JE, Lamdan R, Granberry WF, Harris GF, Carrera GF. Hindfoot coronal alignment: a modified radiographic method. Foot Ankle Int. 1999;20:818–825.
    1. Saltzman CL, el-Khoury GY. The hindfoot alignment view. Foot Ankle Int. 1995;16:572–576.
    1. Cobey JC. Posterior roentgenogram of the foot. Clin Orthop. 1976;118:202–207.
    1. Buck P, Morrey BF, Chao EY. The optimum position of arthrodesis of the ankle. A gait study of the knee and ankle. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1987;69:1052–1062.
    1. Lamm BM, Mendicino RW, Catanzariti AR, Hillstrom HJ. Static rearfoot alignment: a comparison of clinical and radiographic measures. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2005;95:26–33.
    1. Mendicino RW, Catanzariti AR, Reeves CL, King GL. A systematic approach to evaluation of the rearfoot, ankle, and leg in reconstructive surgery. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2005;95:2–12.
    1. Kleiger B, Mankin HJ. A roentgenographic study of development of the calcaneus by means of the posterior tangential view. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1961;43:961–969.
    1. Torburn L, Perry J, Gronley JK. Assessment of rearfoot motion: passive positioning, one-legged standing, gait. Foot Ankle Int. 1998;19:688–693.
    1. Pierrynowski MR, Smith SB. Rear foot inversion/eversion during gait relative to the subtalar joint neutral position. Foot Ankle Int. 1996;17:406–412.
    1. Smith-Oricchio K, Harris BA. Interrater reliability of subtalar neutral, calcaneal inversion and eversion. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1990;12:10–15.
    1. Walter SD, Eliasziw M, Donner A. Sample size and optimal designs for reliability studies. Stat Med. 1998;17:101–110. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19980115)17:1<101::AID-SIM727>;2-E.
    1. Mendicino RW, Catanzariti AR, John S, Child B, Lamm BM. Long leg calcaneal axial and hindfoot alignment radiographic views for frontal plane assessment. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2008;98:75–78.
    1. Strash WW, Berardo P. Radiographic assessment of the hindfoot and ankle. Clin Podiatr Med Surg. 2004;21:295–304. doi: 10.1016/j.cpm.2004.03.004.
    1. Tuijthof GJ, Herder JL, Scholten PE, van Dijk CN, Pistecky PV. Measuring alignment of the hindfoot. J Biomech Eng. 2004;126:357–362. doi: 10.1115/1.1762897.
    1. Robinson I, Dyson R, Halson-Brown S. Reliability of clinical and radiographic measurement or rearfoot alignment in a patient population. The Foot. 2001;11:238–248. doi: 10.1054/foot.2000.0645.
    1. Muller R, Buttner P. A critical discussion of intraclass correlation coefficients. Stat Med. 1994;13:2465–2476. doi: 10.1002/sim.4780132310.
    1. Deyo RA, Diehr P, Patrick DL. Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures. Statistics and strategies for evaluation. Control Clin Trials. 1991;12(4 Suppl):142S–1458. doi: 10.1016/S0197-2456(05)80019-4.
    1. Sell KE, Verity TM, Worrell TW, Pease BJ, Wigglesworth J. Two measurement techniques for assessing subtalar joint position: a reliability study. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1994;19:162–167.
    1. Hamill J, Bates BT, Knutzen KM, Kirkpatrick GM. Relationship between selected static and dynamic lower extremity measures. Clin Biomech. 1989;4:217–225. doi: 10.1016/0268-0033(89)90006-5.

Source: PubMed

3
Subscribe