Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The reliability of radiographic measures of total ankle replacement position: an analysis from the OARS cohort

  • Scientific Article
  • Published:
Skeletal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

There is no validated radiographic measurement to diagnose prosthetic complication(s) following total ankle replacements (TARs) although a number of angular and linear measurements, used to define the TAR position on postoperative radiographs, have been recommended to detect prosthetic loosening. The aim of this study was to test the intra- and interobserver reliability of these measurements.

Materials and methods

This is a prospective study embedded within a multicentre cohort study. Following sample size calculation, 62 patients were analysed. Six measurements were performed on the first postoperative anteroposterior and lateral ankle radiographs: angles α and β, and length “a” defined the craniocaudal position of the tibial component, while angle γ, and lengths “b” and “c” defined the angular position of the talar component. Measurements were recorded by three independent observers. Inter- and intraobserver reliability was assessed with intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), Bland-Altman plots, and within-subject coefficients of variation (CV).

Results

The intrarater ICC was “almost perfect” (ICC 0.83–0.97) for all six measurements. The interrater ICC was “substantial” to “almost perfect” (ICC 0.69–0.93). The mean difference in intrarater angular measurements was ≤ 0.6° and ≤ 0.8 mm for linear measurements, and ≤ 2.2° and ≤ 2.1 mm for interrater measurements. Maximum CV for the interrater linear measurements (≤ 17.7%) more than doubled that of the angular measurements (≤ 8.0%). The maximum width of the 95% limits of agreement was 6.5° and 8.4 mm for intrarater measures, and 8.9° and 10.6 mm for interrater measurements.

Conclusion

Angular measures are more reliable than linear measures and have potential in routine clinical practice for TAR position assessment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bolton-Maggs BG, Sudlow RA, Freeman MA. Total ankle arthroplasty. A long-term review of the London Hospital experience. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1985 Nov;67(5):785–90.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Kitaoka HB, Patzer GL. Clinical results of the Mayo total ankle arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1996 Nov;78(11):1658–64.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Kim D-R, Choi YS, Potter HG, Li AE, Chun K-Y, Jung YY, et al. Total ankle arthroplasty: an imaging overview. Korean J Radiol. 2016;17(3):413–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bianchi A, Martinelli N, Hosseinzadeh M, Flore J, Minoli C, Malerba F, et al. Early clinical and radiological evaluation in patients with total ankle replacement performed by lateral approach and peroneal osteotomy. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2019 Dec;20(1):132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Glazebrook MA, Arsenault K, Dunbar M. Evidence-based classification of complications in total ankle arthroplasty. Foot Ankle Int. 2009 Oct;30(10):945–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bestic JM, Peterson JJ, DeOrio JK, Bancroft LW, Berquist TH, Kransdorf MJ. Postoperative evaluation of the total ankle arthroplasty. Am J Roentgenol. 2008 Apr;190(4):1112–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. R Development Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing [Internet]. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2008. Available from: http://www.R-project.org

  8. Bland M, Altman D. How should I calculate a within-subject coefficient of variation? [Internet]. 2006. Available from: https://www-users.york.ac.uk/~mb55/meas/cv.htm

  9. Eng J. Sample size estimation: how many individuals should be studied? Radiology. 2003 May;227(2):309–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Carlsson ÅS, Nilsson J-Å, Redlund-Johnell I, Henricson A, Linder L. A survival analysis of 52 Bath & Wessex ankle replacements. A clinical and radiographic study in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and a critical review of the literature. Foot. 1994 Mar 1;4(1):34–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Wood PLR, Deakin S. Total ankle replacement: the results in 200 ankles. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2003 Apr;85-B(3):334–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159–74.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Bernstein IH, Nunnally JC. The assessment of reliability. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies; 1994. 248–92 p.

  14. Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. 2016 Jun;15(2):155–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ranganathan P, Pramesh C, Aggarwal R. Common pitfalls in statistical analysis: measures of agreement. Perspect Clin Res. 2017;8(4):187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Micheau A. Calcaneal tubercle [Internet]. IMAIOS. 2019 [cited 2019 Dec 5]. Available from: https://www.imaios.com/en/e-Anatomy/Anatomical-Parts/Calcaneal-tubercle

  17. Thieme atlas of anatomy: general anatomy and musculoskeletal system. Thieme; 2006. 541 p.

  18. Willegger M, Holinka J, Nemecek E, Bock P, Wanivenhaus AH, Windhager R, et al. Reliability of the radiographic sagittal and frontal tibiotalar alignment after ankle arthrodesis. Tsuchiya H, editor. PLOS ONE. 2016 Apr 28;11(4):e0154224.

  19. Bestic JM, Bancroft LW, Peterson JJ, Kransdorf MJ. Postoperative imaging of the total ankle arthroplasty. Radiol Clin N Am. 2008 Nov;46(6):1003–15 v–vi.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Norfolk & Norwich University Hospital, Norwich, UK

    Samantha Bee Lian Low, Matthew Kim & Andoni P. Toms

  2. Norwich Radiology Academy, The Cotman Centre, Norwich, NR4 7UB, UK

    Samantha Bee Lian Low

  3. School of Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK

    Toby Smith

  4. Department of Trauma & Orthopaedics, Norfolk & Norwich University Hospital, Norwich, UK

    David Loveday

  5. Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK

    Alex MacGregor

Authors
  1. Samantha Bee Lian Low
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Matthew Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Toby Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. David Loveday
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Alex MacGregor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Andoni P. Toms
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Samantha Bee Lian Low.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Low, S.B.L., Kim, M., Smith, T. et al. The reliability of radiographic measures of total ankle replacement position: an analysis from the OARS cohort. Skeletal Radiol 50, 1411–1417 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-020-03704-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-020-03704-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation