European Radiology

, Volume 24, Issue 3, pp 553–558 | Cite as

Upright Cone CT of the hindfoot: Comparison of the non-weight-bearing with the upright weight-bearing position

  • Anna HirschmannEmail author
  • Christian W. A. Pfirrmann
  • Georg Klammer
  • Norman Espinosa
  • Florian M. Buck



To prospectively compare computed tomography (CT) of the hindfoot in the supine non-weight-bearing position (NWBCT) with upright weight-bearing position (WBCT).


Institutional review board approval and informed consent of all patients were obtained. NWBCT and WBCT scans of the ankle were obtained in 22 patients (mean age, 46.0 ± 17.1 years; range 19–75 years) using a conventional 64-row CT for NWBCT and a novel cone-beam CT for WBCT. Two musculoskeletal radiologists independently performed the following measurements: the hindfoot alignment angle, fibulocalcaneal and tibiocalcaneal distances, lateral talocalcaneal joint space width, talocalcaneal overlap and naviculocalcaneal distance. Significant changes between NWBCT and WBCT were sought using Wilcoxon signed-rank test. P values <0.05 were considered statistically significant.


Significant differences were found for all measurements except the hindfoot alignment angle and tibiocalcaneal distance. Significant measurement results were as follows (NWBCT/WBCT reader 1; NWBCT/WBCT reader 2, mean ± standard deviation): fibulocalcaneal distance 3.6 mm ± 5.2/0.3 mm ± 6.0 (P = 0.006); 1.4 mm ± 6.3/-1.1 mm ± 6.3 (P = 0.002), lateral talocalcaneal joint space width 2.9 mm ± 1.7/2.2 mm ± 1.1 (P = 0.005); 3.4 mm ± 1.9/2.4 mm ± 1.3 (P = 0.001), talocalcaneal overlap 4.1 mm ± 3.9/1.4 mm ± 3.9 (P = 0.001); 4.5 mm ± 4.3/1.4 mm ± 3.7 (P < 0.001) and naviculocalcaneal distance 13.5 mm ± 4.0/15.3 mm ± 4.7 (P = 0.037); 14.0 mm ± 4.4/15.7 mm ± 6.2 (P = 0.100). Interreader agreement was good to excellent (ICC 0.48–0.94).


Alignment of the hindfoot significantly changes in the upright weight-bearing CT position. Differences can be visualised and measured using WBCT.

Key Points

Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) offers new opportunities for musculoskeletal problems

Visualization and quantification of hindfoot alignment are possible in upright weight-bearing CBCT

Hindfoot alignment changes significantly from non-weight-bearing to weight-bearing CT

The weight-bearing position leads to a decrease in the fibulocalcaneal distance and talocalcaneal overlap

The naviculocalcaneal distance is increased in the weight-bearing position


Hindfoot alignment Cone-beam computed tomography Weight-bearing Talocalcaneal overlap Fibulocalcaneal distance 


  1. 1.
    Nosewicz TL, Knupp M, Bolliger L, Hintermann B (2012) The reliability and validity of radiographic measurements for determining the three-dimensional position of the talus in varus and valgus osteoarthritic ankles. Skeletal Radiol 41:1567–1573PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Buck FM, Hoffmann A, Mamisch-Saupe N, Espinosa N, Resnick D, Hodler J (2011) Hindfoot alignment measurements: rotation-stability of measurement techniques on hindfoot alignment view and long axial view radiographs. AJR Am J Roentgenol 197:578–582PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Van Bergeyk AB, Younger A, Carson B (2002) CT analysis of hindfoot alignment in chronic lateral ankle instability. Foot Ankle Int 23:37–42PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Greisberg J, Hansen ST, Sangeorzan B (2003) Deformity and degeneration in the hindfoot and midfoot joints of the adult acquired flatfoot. Foot Ankle Int 24:530–534PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Saltzmann CL, el-Khoury GY (1995) The hindfoot alignment view. Foot Ankle Int 16:572–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ananthakrisnan D, Ching R, Tencer A, Hansen ST, Sangeorzan BJ (1999) Subluxation of the talocalcaneal joint in adults who have symptomatic flatfoot. J Bone Joint Surg Am 81A:1147–1154Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ferri M, Scharfenberger AV, Goplen G, Daniels TR, Pearce D (2008) Weightbearing CT scan of severe flexible pes planus deformity. Foot Ankle Int 29:199–204PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kido M, Ikoma K, Imai K, Maki M, Takatori R, Tokunaga D et al (2011) Load response of the tarsal bones in patients with flatfoot deformity: in vivo 3D study. Foot Ankle Int 32:1017–1022PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kido M, Ikoma K, Imai K, Inoue N, Kubo T (2013) Load response of the medial longitudinal arch in patients with flatfoot deformity: in vivo 3D study. Clin Biomech 28:568–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ledoux WR, Rohr ES, Ching RP, Sangeorzan BJ (2006) Effect of foot shape on the three-dimensional position of foot bones. J Orthop Res 24:2176–2186PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Malicky ES, Crary JL, Houghton MJ, Agel J, Hansen ST, Sangeorzan BJ (2002) Talocalcaneal and subfibular impingement in symptomatic flatfoot in adults. J Bone Joint Surg Am 84A:2005–2009Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ellis SJ, Deyer T, Williams BR, Yu JC, Lehto S, Maderazo A, Pavlov H et al (2010) Assessment of lateral hindfoot pain in acquired flatfoot deformity using weightbearing multiplanar imaging. Foot Ankle Int 31:361–371PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tuominen EKL, Kankare J, Koskinen SK, Mattila KT (2013) Weight-bearing CT imaging of the lower extremity. AJR Am J Roentgenol 200:146–148PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Koskinen SK, Haapamäki VV, Salo J, Lindfors NC, Kortesniemi M, Seppälä L, Mattila KT (2013) CT arthrogarphy of the wrist using a novel, mobile, dedicated extremity cone-beam CT (CBCT). Skeletal Radiol 42:649–657PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ippolito E, Fraracci L, Farsetti P, De Maio F (2004) Validity of the anteroposterior talocalcaneal angle to assess congenital clubfoot correction. AJR Am J Roentgenol 182:1279–1282PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Donovan A, Rosenberg ZS (2009) Extraarticular lateral hindfoot impingement with posterior tibial tendon tear: MRI correlation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193:672–678PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Buck FM, Hoffmann A, Mamisch-Saupe N, Farshad M, Resnick D, Espinosa N, Hodler J (2013) Diagnostic performance of MRI measurements to assess hindfoot malalignment. An assessment of four measurement techniques. Eur Radiol 23:2594–2601PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rosner BA (2011) The intraclass correlation coefficient. In: Fundamentals of Biostatistics, 7th edn. Brooks/Cole, Boston, USA, p 569Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Donovan A, Rosenberg ZS (2010) MRI of ankle and lateral hindfoot impingment syndromes. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195:595–604PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Seltzer SE, Weissmann BN, Braunstein EM, Adams DF, Thomas WH (1984) Computed tomography of the hindfoot. J Comput Assist Tomogr 8:488–497PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anna Hirschmann
    • 1
    Email author
  • Christian W. A. Pfirrmann
    • 1
  • Georg Klammer
    • 2
  • Norman Espinosa
    • 2
  • Florian M. Buck
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Radiology, Orthopaedic University Hospital BalgristUniversity of ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  2. 2.Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Orthopaedic University Hospital BalgristUniversity of ZurichZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations