Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Interreader reliability assessment of hallux valgus evaluation on dorsoplantar weightbearing radiographs from a prospective multi-center trial and correlation with patient-reported outcome measures

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

Abstract

Objective

To determine inter-reader reliability (IRR) of hallux valgus (HV) related parameters, i.e. intermetatarsal angle (IMA), hallux valgus angle (HVA), lateral round sign of the first metatarsal, tibial sesamoid position (TSP), metatarsus adductus angle (MAA), transverse osseous foot width, 1st MT length, MTP osteoarthritis (OA), and distal metatarsal articular angle (DMAA). These were correlated with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

Materials and Methods

A prospective single-arm Level 3 multicenter clinical trial in which standardized radiographs and PROMs were collected at the time of the initial patient visit for pre-operative assessment. Two musculoskeletal radiologists performed measurements blinded to each other’s reads and clinical information. Intraclass coefficient and kappa were obtained for inter-reader analysis. A partial spearman rank order was used to correlate the measurements with PROMs.

Results

The final cohort size of 183 patients had mean age of 40.77 years, mean body mass index was 26.11 kg/m2, with 91.2% females and 8.7% males. There was excellent IRR for HVA (0.96, CI: [0.94,0.97]), IMA (0.92, CI: [0.89,0.94]), transverse osseous foot width (0.99, CI: [0.98,1.00]), and DMAA (0.80, CI: [0.74, 0.85]), good agreement for TSP (0.73, CI:[0.67,0.79]) and MAA (0.67, CI: [0.16, 0.84]), fair agreement for MTP OA (0.48, CI: [0.36,0.59]), and poor agreement for lateral round sign (0.32, CI: [0.11, 0.52]. The negative correlation of increasing transverse osseous foot width with worsening PROMIS physical but better MOxFQ and VAS scores is likely spurious.

Conclusion

Good to excellent inter-reader reliability was observed for the most often used measurements for HV assessment without major trends in their correlations with PROMs. Lateral round sign is not a reliable finding in HV deformity.

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
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wülker N, Mittag F. The treatment of hallux valgus. Dtsch Aerzteblatt Int. 2012;109:857–67.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Kim Y, Kim JS, Young KW, Reza N, Cho HK, Lee SY. A new measure of tibial sesamoid position in hallux valgus in relation to the coronal rotation of the first metatarsal in CT scans. Foot Ankle Int. 2015;36:944–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Nix S, Smith M, Vicenzino B. Prevalence of hallux valgus in the general population: a systematic review and metaanalysis. J Foot Ankle Res. 2010;3:1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Rosen J, Grady J. Neuritic bunion syndrome. J Am Pod Med Assoc. 1986;76:641–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Haas M. Radiographic and biomechanical consideration of bunion surgery. In: Gerbert J, editor. Textbook of Bunion Surgery. Futura Publishing; 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Heineman N, Xi Y, Zhang L, Dessouky R, Hummel J, Skweres J, et al. Hallux valgus evaluation on MRI: can measurements validated on radiographs be used? J Foot Ankle Surg [Internet]. 2018;57:305–8. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jfas.2017.10.009. Elsevier Inc.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Heineman N, Liu G, Pacicco T, Dessouky R, Wukich D, Chhabra A. Clinical and imaging assessment and treatment of hallux valgus. Acta radiol. 2019;61:56–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Lamm BM, Stasko PA, Gesheff MG, Bhave A. Normal foot and ankle radiographic angles, measurements, and reference points. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2016;55:991–8. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jfas.2016.05.005.

  9. Heineman N, Chhabra A, Zhang L, Dessouky R, Wukich D. Point vs. traditional method evaluation of hallux valgus: interreader reliability and intermethod performance using X-ray and MRI. Skeletal Radiol. 2019;48:251–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Liu GT, Chhabra A, Dayton MJ, Dayton PD, Duke WJ, Farber DC, et al. One- and two-year analysis of a five-year prospective multicenter study assessing radiographic and patient-reported outcomes following triplanar first tarsometatarsal arthrodesis with early weightbearing for symptomatic hallux valgus. J Foot Ankle Surg [Internet]. Elsevier Inc.; 2022;000:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jfas.2022.04.008.

  11. Srivastava S, Chockalingam N, El Fakhri T. Radiographic angles in hallux valgus: Comparison between manual and computer-assisted measurements. J Foot Ankle Surg [Internet]. 2010;49:523–8. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jfas.2010.07.012. Elsevier Ltd

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 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;3:1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Lee KM, Ahn S, Chung CY, Sung KH, Park MS. Reliability and relationship of radiographic measurements in hallux valgus foot and ankle. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470:2613–21.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Matthews M, Klein E, Youssef A, Weil L, Sorensen M, Weil LS, et al. Correlation of radiographic measurements with patient-centered outcomes in hallux valgus surgery. Foot Ankle Int. 2018;39:1416–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Sharfman ZT, Safran N, Amar E, Varshneya K, Safran MR, Rath E. Age-adjusted normative values for hip patient-reported outcome measures. Am J Sports Med. 2022;50(1):79–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/03635465211056666.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Authors acknowledge the kind assistance of Lisa Kennedy and Shana Zink for the assistance with data collection.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Texas A&M School of Medicine, Dallas, TX, USA

    Shyam S. Ramachandran

  2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, UT Southwestern, Dallas, TX, 75390-9178, USA

    Shyam S. Ramachandran, Seth Reine, Holden Archer, Dane K. Wukich & Avneesh Chhabra

  3. West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA

    Jennifer Koay

  4. Department of Radiology, UT Southwestern, Dallas, TX, USA

    Avneesh Chhabra

  5. Johns Hopkins University, Maryland, MD, USA

    Avneesh Chhabra

  6. University of Dallas, Richardson, TX, USA

    Avneesh Chhabra

  7. Walton Centre for Neuroscience, Liverpool, UK

    Avneesh Chhabra

Authors
  1. Shyam S. Ramachandran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Seth Reine
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Holden Archer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jennifer Koay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Dane K. Wukich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Avneesh Chhabra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Avneesh Chhabra.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

IRB approval was obtained from each institution.

Conflict of interest

AC: Consultant: ICON Medical and TREACE Medical Concepts Inc., Book Royalties: Jaypee, Wolters, Speaker: Siemens, Medical advisor: Image biopsy Lab Inc., Research grant: Image biopsy Lab Inc. The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note

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

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 21 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ramachandran, S.S., Reine, S., Archer, H. et al. Interreader reliability assessment of hallux valgus evaluation on dorsoplantar weightbearing radiographs from a prospective multi-center trial and correlation with patient-reported outcome measures. Skeletal Radiol 52, 2419–2425 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-023-04365-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-023-04365-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation