Skeletal Radiology

, Volume 42, Issue 2, pp 269–273 | Cite as

Use of the iPhone for radiographic evaluation of hallux valgus

  • Tolga Ege
  • Ozkan KoseEmail author
  • Kenan Koca
  • Bahtiyar Demiralp
  • Mustafa Basbozkurt
Scientific Article



The purpose of this study was to compare the measurements made using a smartphone accelerometer and computerized measurements as a reference in a series of 32 hallux valgus patients.

Materials and methods

Two observers used an iPhone to measure the hallux valgus angle (HVA), intermetatarsal angle (IMA), and distal metatarsal articular angle (of anteroposterior foot radiographs in 32 patients with symptomatic hallux valgus on a computer screen. Digital angular measurements on the computer were set as the reference standard for analysis and comparison. The difference between computerized measurements and all iPhone measurements, and the difference between the first and second iPhone measurements for each observer were calculated. Inter- and intraobserver reliability of the smartphone measurement method was also tested.


The variability of all measurements was similar for the iPhone and the computer-assisted techniques. The concordance between iPhone and computer-assisted angular measurements was excellent for the HVA, IMA, and DMAA. The maximum mean difference between the two techniques was 1.25 ± 1.02° for HVA, 0.92 ± 0.92° for IMA, and 1.10 ± 0.82° for DMAA. The interobserver reliability was excellent for HVA, IMA, and DMAA. The maximum mean difference between observers was 1.31 ± 0.89° for HVA, 0.90 ± 0.92° for IMA, and 0.78 ± 0.87° for DMAA. The intraobserver reliability was excellent for HVA, IMA, and DMAA.


We conclude that the Hallux Angles software for the iPhone can be used for measurement of hallux valgus angles in clinical practice and even for research purposes. It is an accurate and reproducible method.


Hallux valgus Radiography Reproducibility of results Interobserver variability Intraobserver variability iPhone Hallux Angles 


  1. 1.
    Perera AM, Mason L, Stephens MM. The pathogenesis of hallux valgus. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(17):1650–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Coughlin MJ. Hallux valgus. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1996;78(6):932–66.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Coughlin MJ, Jones CP. Hallux valgus: demographics, etiology, and radiographic assessment. Foot Ankle Int. 2007;28(7):759–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Piqué-Vidal C, Maled-García I, Arabi-Moreno J, Vila J. Radiographic angles in hallux valgus: differences between measurements made manually and with a computerized program. Foot Ankle Int. 2006;27(3):175–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Coughlin MJ, Saltzman CL, Nunley 2nd JA. Angular measurements in the evaluation of hallux valgus deformities: a report of the ad hoc committee of the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society on angular measurements. Foot Ankle Int. 2002;23(1):68–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    WG Healthcare. Hallux Angles homepage. Accessed 27 February 2012.
  8. 8.
    Bussewitz BW, Levar T, Hyer CF. Modern techniques in hallux abducto valgus surgery. Clin Podiatr Med Surg. 2011;28(2):287–303.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Maffulli N, Longo UG, Marinozzi A, Denaro V. Hallux valgus: effectiveness and safety of minimally invasive surgery. A systematic review. Br Med Bull. 2011;97:149–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schneider W, Knahr K. Surgery for hallux valgus. The expectations of patients and surgeons. Int Orthop. 2001;25(6):382–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Coughlin MJ, Freund E. Roger A. Mann Award. The reliability of angular measurements in hallux valgus deformities. Foot Ankle Int. 2001;22(5):369–79.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Resch S, Ryd L, Stenström A, Johnsson K, Reynisson K. Measuring hallux valgus: a comparison of conventional radiography and clinical parameters with regard to measurement accuracy. Foot Ankle Int. 1995;16(5):267–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Van Vo H, Safiedine AM, Short T, Merrill T. A comparison of 4 common methods of hand-measured techniques with a computerized technique to measure the first intermetatarsal angle. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2004;43(6):395–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shaw M, Adam CJ, Izatt MT, Licina P, Askin GN. Use of the iPhone for Cobb angle measurement in scoliosis. Eur Spine J. 2012. In press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© ISS 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tolga Ege
    • 1
  • Ozkan Kose
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Kenan Koca
    • 1
  • Bahtiyar Demiralp
    • 1
  • Mustafa Basbozkurt
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedics and TraumatologyGulhane Military Medical AcademyAnkaraTurkey
  2. 2.Orthopaedics and Traumatology ClinicAntalya Education and Research HospitalAntalyaTurkey
  3. 3.AntalyaTurkey

Personalised recommendations