Skeletal Radiology

, Volume 48, Issue 2, pp 251–257 | Cite as

Point vs. traditional method evaluation of hallux valgus: interreader reliability and intermethod performance using X-ray and MRI

  • Nathan Heineman
  • Avneesh Chhabra
  • Lihua Zhang
  • Riham Dessouky
  • Dane Wukich
Scientific Article



The two most widely used measurements for diagnosing and assessing the severity of hallux valgus are the hallux valgus angle (HVA) and the intermetatarsal angle (IMA). Traditionally, these have been measured by using the midaxial lines approximating the axis of each bone. A new simpler point method has been recently suggested for measuring these angles by connecting points along the medial corners of each bone. Interreader reliability of these measurements on X-ray and MRI as well as intermethod and intermodality differences have not been assessed.


A series of 56 consecutive patients between 18 and 100 years old with no history of foot trauma or orthopedic hardware in their feet were included. All had AP and lateral X-rays and MRI performed on the same foot between April 27, 2015 and March 9, 2016. Two readers measured HVA and IMA using both the traditional midaxial and new point methods. ICC correlations were obtained.


The interreader reliability for HVA was similar on point method (0.92) and traditional method (0.94). For the IMA, the ICC was 0.77 on point method versus 0.76 on traditional method. The intermodality agreement (between X-ray and MRI) was higher for HVA (ICC = 0.85, 0.88) as compared to IMA (0.58, 0.74), respectively on both methods. The mean difference between the methods was larger on traditional method = 5.5 for HVA and 2.5° for IMA.


HVA is more reliable than IMA on both methods and modalities and a significant difference exists between the magnitudes of values obtained using the two methods.

Level of Clinical Evidence: 3


Bunion Foot and ankle Intermetatarsal angle MRI X-ray 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.


  1. 1.
    Nix S, Smith M, Vicenzino B. Prevalence of hallux valgus in the general population: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Foot Ankle Res. 2010;3:21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mann RACM. Adult Hallux Valgus. In: Coughlin MJMR, editor. Surgery of the foot and ankle. St. Louis: Mosby; 1999. p. 150–75.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Faber FW, Kleinrensink GJ, Verhoog MW, Vijn AH, Snijders CJ, Mulder PG, et al. Mobility of the first tarsometatarsal joint in relation to hallux valgus deformity: anatomical and biomechanical aspects. Foot Ankle Int. 1999;20(10):651–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ferrari J, Malone-Lee J. The shape of the metatarsal head as a cause of hallux abductovalgus. Foot Ankle Int. 2002;23(3):236–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kirkup JR, Vidigal E, Jacoby RK. The hallux and rheumatoid arthritis. Acta Orthop Scand. 1977;48(5):527–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lee KM, Ahn S, Chung CY, Sung KH, Park MS. Reliability and relationship of radiographic measurements in hallux valgus. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470(9):2613–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Srivastava S, Chockalingam N, El Fakhri T. Radiographic angles in hallux valgus: comparison between manual and computer-assisted measurements. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2010;49(6):523–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Seo JH, Ahn JY, Boedijono D. Point-connecting measurements of the hallux valgus deformity: a new measurement and its clinical application. Yonsei Med J. 2016;57(3):741–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ashman CJ, Klecker RJ. Yu JS. Forefoot pain involving the metatarsal region: differential diagnosis with MR imaging. Radiographics. 2001;21(6):1425–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Miller JW. Distal first metatarsal displacement osteotomy. Its place in the schema of bunion surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1974;56(5):923–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cicchetti D. Guidelines, Criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instrument in psychology. Psychol Assess. 1994;6(4):284–90.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nix S, Russell T, Vicenzino B, Smith M. Validity and reliability of hallux valgus angle measured on digital photographs. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2012;42(7):642–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pourhoseingholi E, Pourhoseingholi MA, Bagheri A, Esfandiar E, Saeb M. Footprint as an alternative to X-ray in hallux valgus angle measurement. Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2017;31:33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Walter R, Kosy JD, Cove R. Inter- and intra-observer reliability of a smartphone application for measuring hallux valgus angles. Foot Ankle Surg. 2013;19(1):18–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bryant A, Tinley P, Singer K. A comparison of radiographic measurements in normal, hallux valgus, and hallux limitus feet. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2000;39(1):39–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    D'Arcangelo PR, Landorf KB, Munteanu SE, Zammit GV, Menz HB. Radiographic correlates of hallux valgus severity in older people. J Foot Ankle Res. 2010;3:20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lamm BM, Stasko PA, Gesheff MG, Bhave A. Normal foot and ankle radiographic angles, measurements, and reference points. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2016;55(5):991–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Saro C, Johnson DN, Martinez De Aragon J, Lindgren U, Fellander-Tsai L. Reliability of radiological and cosmetic measurements in hallux valgus. Acta Radiol. 2005;46(8):843–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shima H, Okuda R, Yasuda T, Jotoku T, Kitano N, Kinoshita M. Radiographic measurements in patients with hallux valgus before and after proximal crescentic osteotomy. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(6):1369–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Karasick D, Wapner KL. Hallux valgus deformity: preoperative radiologic assessment. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1990;155(1):119–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rippstein PF, Park YU, Naal FD. Combination of first metatarsophalangeal joint arthrodesis and proximal correction for severe hallux valgus deformity. Foot Ankle Int. 2012;33(5):400–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ISS 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nathan Heineman
    • 1
  • Avneesh Chhabra
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Lihua Zhang
    • 1
  • Riham Dessouky
    • 1
    • 4
  • Dane Wukich
    • 2
  1. 1.RadiologyUT Southwestern Medical CenterDallasUSA
  2. 2.Orthopaedic SurgeryUT Southwestern Medical CenterDallasUSA
  3. 3.Adjunct FacultyJohns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA
  4. 4.Radiology, Faculty of MedicineZagazig UniversityZagazigEgypt

Personalised recommendations