Reliability and correlation analysis of computed methods to convert conventional 2D radiological hindfoot measurements to a 3D setting using weightbearing CT

Abstract

Purpose

The exact radiographic assessment of the hindfoot alignment remains challenging. This is reflected in the different measurement methods available. Weightbearing CT (WBCT) has been demonstrated to be more accurate in hindfoot measurements. However, current measurements are still performed in 2D. This study wants to assess the use of computed methods to convert the former uniplanar hindfoot measurements obtained after WBCT towards a 3D setting.

Methods

Forty-eight patients, mean age of 39.6 ± 13.2 years, with absence of hindfoot pathology were included. A WBCT was obtained, and images were subsequently segmented and analyzed using computer-aided design operations. In addition to the hindfoot angle (HA), other ankle and hindfoot parameters such as the anatomical tibia axis, talocalcaneal axis (TCA), talocrural angle, tibial inclination (TI), talar tilt, and subtalar vertical angle were determined in 2D and 3D.

Results

The mean \(\hbox {HA}_{2\mathrm{D}}\) was \(0.79^{\circ }\) of valgus ± 3.2 and the \(\hbox {HA}_{\mathrm{3D}}\) was \(8.08^{\circ }\) of valgus ± 6.5. These angles differed significantly from each other with a \(P<0.001\). The correlation between both showed to be good by \(\hbox {a}\) Pearson correlation coefficient (r) of 0.72 (\(P < 0.001\)). The \(\hbox {ICC}_{\mathrm{3D}}\) showed to be excellent when compared to the \(\hbox {ICC}_{\mathrm{2D}}\), which was good. Similar findings were obtained in other angles. The highest correlation was seen between the \(\hbox {TI}_{\mathrm{2D}}\) and \(\hbox {TI}_{\mathrm{3D}}\) (r = 0.83, \(P < 0.001\)) and an almost perfect agreement in the \(\hbox {TCA}_\mathrm{3D}\) (\(\hbox {ICC}_{\mathrm{3D}}=0.99\)).

Conclusion

This study shows a good and reliable correlation between the \(\hbox {HA}_{\mathrm{2D}}\) and \(\hbox {HA}_{\mathrm{3D}}\). However, the \(\hbox {HA}_{\mathrm{3D}}\) overcomes the shortcomings of inaccuracy and provides valuable spatial data that could be incorporated during computer-assisted surgery to assess the multiplanar correction of a hindfoot deformity.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

References

  1. 1.

    Cobey JC (1976) Posterior roentgenogram of the foot. Clin Orthop Relat Res 118:202–207

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Saltzman CL, El-Khoury GY (1995) The hindfoot alignment view. Foot Ankle Int 16(9):572–576

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Reilingh ML, Beimers L, Tuijthof GJM, Stufkens SAS, Maas M, van Dijk CN (2010) Measuring hindfoot alignment radiographically: the long axial view is more reliable than the hindfoot alignment view. Skelet Radiol 39(11):1103–1108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-009-0857-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    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. Am J Roentgenol 197(3):578–582

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Barg A, Amendola RL, Henninger HB, Kapron AL, Saltzman CL, Anderson AE (2015) Influence of ankle position and radiographic projection angle on measurement of supramalleolar alignment on the anteroposterior and hindfoot alignment views. Foot Ankle Int 36(11):1352–1361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Ikoma K, Noguchi M, Nagasawa K, Maki M, Kido M, Hara Y, Kubo T (2013) A new radiographic view of the hindfoot. J Foot Ankle Res 6(1):48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Richter M, Seidl B, Zech S, Hahn S (2014) PedCAT for 3D-imaging in standing position allows for more accurate bone position (angle) measurement than radiographs or CT. Foot Ankle Surg 20(3):201–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fas.2014.04.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Burssens A, Peeters J, Buedts K, Victor J, Vandeputte G (2016) Measuring hindfoot alignment in weight bearing CT: a novel clinical relevant measurement method. Foot Ankle Surg 22(4):233–238

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Colin F, Lang TH, Zwicky L, Hintermann B, Knupp M (2014) Subtalar joint configuration on weightbearing CT scan. Foot Ankle Int. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071100714540890

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Krähenbühl N, Tschuck M, Bolliger L, Hintermann B, Knupp M (2016) Orientation of the subtalar joint measurement and reliability using weightbearing CT scans. Foot Ankle Int 37(1):109–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Tuominen EK, Kankare J, Koskinen SK, Mattila KT (2013) Weight-bearing CT imaging of the lower extremity. Am J Roentgenol 200(1):146–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    O’Connor JF, Cohen J (1978) Computerized tomography (CAT scan, CT scan) in orthopaedic surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 60(8):1096–1098

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Wicky S, Blaser P, Blanc C, Leyvraz P, Schnyder P, Meuli R (2000) Comparison between standard radiography and spiral CT with 3D reconstruction in the evaluation, classification and management of tibial plateau fractures. Euro Radiol 10(8):1227–1232

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    te Stroet MA, Holla M, Biert J, van Kampen A (2011) The value of a CT scan compared to plain radiographs for the classification and treatment plan in tibial plateau fractures. Emerg Radiol 18(4):279–283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Sanders R (2000) Current concepts review-displaced intra-articular fractures of the calcaneus. J Bone Joint Surg 82(2):225–250

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Auricchio F, Marconi S (2016) 3D printing: clinical applications in orthopaedics and traumatology. EFORT Open Rev 1(5):121–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Richter M (2013) Computer aided surgery in foot and ankle: applications and perspectives. Int Orthop 37(9):1737–1745

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Tack P, Victor J, Gemmel P, Annemans L (2016) 3D-printing techniques in a medical setting: a systematic literature review. BioMed Eng OnLine 15(1):115. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12938-016-0236-4

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Jacxsens M, Van Tongel A, Willemot LB, Mueller AM, Valderrabano V, De Wilde L (2015) Accuracy of the glenohumeral subluxation index in nonpathologic shoulders. J Shoulder Elb Surg 24(4):541–546

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Victor J, Premanathan A (2013) Virtual 3D planning and patient specific surgical guides for osteotomies around the knee. Bone Joint J 95(11 Supple A):153–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Audenaert EA, Baelde N, Huysse W, Vigneron L, Pattyn C (2011) Development of a three-dimensional detection method of cam deformities in femoroacetabular impingement. Skelet Radiol 40(7):921–927

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Hirschmann A, Pfirrmann CWA, Klammer G, Espinosa N, Buck FM (2013) Upright cone CT of the hindfoot: comparison of the non-weight-bearing with the upright weight-bearing position. Eur Radiol 24(3):553–558. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-3028-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    de Cesar NC, Schon LC, Thawait GK, da Fonseca LF, Chinanuvathana A, Zbijewski WB, Siewerdsen JH, Demehri S (2017) Flexible adult acquired flatfoot deformity: comparison between weight-bearing and non-weight-bearing measurements using cone-beam computed tomography. JBJS 99(18):e98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Burssens A, Van Herzele E, Leenders T, Clockaerts S, Buedts K, Vandeputte G, Victor J (2017) Weightbearing CT in normal hindfoot alignment: presence of a constitutional valgus? Foot Ankle Surg 23:16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Barg A, Harris MD, Henninger HB, Amendola RL, Saltzman CL, Hintermann B, Anderson AE (2012) Medial distal tibial angle: comparison between weightbearing mortise view and hindfoot alignment view. Foot Ankle Int 33(8):655–661

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Neri T, Barthelemy R, Tourné Y (2017) Radiologic analysis of hindfoot alignment: comparison of Méary, long axial, and hindfoot alignment views. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 103(8):1211–1216

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Dagneaux L, Moroney P, Maestro M (2017) Reliability of hindfoot alignment measurements from standard radiographs using the methods of Meary and Saltzman. Foot and Ankle Surg. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fas.2017.10.018

  28. 28.

    Iseki Y, Takahashi T, Takeda H, Tsuboi I, Imai H, Mashima N, Watanabe S, Yamamoto H (2009) Defining the load bearing axis of the lower extremity obtained from anterior–posterior digital radiographs of the whole limb in stance. Osteoarthr Cartil 17(5):586–591

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Guichet J-M, Javed A, Russell J, Saleh M (2003) Effect of the foot on the mechanical alignment of the lower limbs. Clin Orthop Relat Res 415:193–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Brage ME, Bennett CR, Whitehurst JB, Getty PJ, Toledano A (1997) Observer reliability in ankle radiographic measurements. Foot Ankle Int 18(6):324–329

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Shrout PE, Fleiss JL (1979) Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 86(2):420

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Hamel J (2015) Calcaneal Z osteotomy for correction of subtalar hindfoot varus deformity. Oper Orthopädie Traumatol 27(4):308

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Lundberg A, Svensson O (1993) The axes of rotation of the talocalcaneal and talonavicular joints. Foot 3(2):65–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Almeida DF, Ruben RB, Folgado J, Fernandes PR, Audenaert E, Verhegghe B, De Beule M (2016) Fully automatic segmentation of femurs with medullary canal definition in high and in low resolution CT scans. Med Eng Phys 38(12):1474–1480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Chen Y, Qiang M, Zhang K, Li H, Dai H (2015) A reliable radiographic measurement for evaluation of normal distal tibiofibular syndesmosis: a multi-detector computed tomography study in adults. J Foot Ankle Res 8(1):1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Hansen M, Le L, Wertheimer S, Meyer E, Haut R (2006) Syndesmosis fixation: analysis of shear stress via axial load on 3.5-mm and 4.5-mm quadricortical syndesmotic screws. J Foot Ankle Surg 45(2):65–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Quill GE (2009) Reconstruction of multiplanar ankle and hindfoot deformity with intramedullary techniques. Foot Ankle Clin 14(3):533–547

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Van den Broeck J, Vereecke E, Wirix-Speetjens R, Vander Sloten J (2014) Segmentation accuracy of long bones. Med Eng Phys 36(7):949–953

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Al-Rawi B, Hassan B, Vandenberge B, Jacobs R (2010) Accuracy assessment of three-dimensional surface reconstructions of teeth from cone beam computed tomography scans. J Oral Rehabilit 37(5):352–358

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Rathnayaka K, Sahama T, Schuetz MA, Schmutz B (2011) Effects of CT image segmentation methods on the accuracy of long bone 3D reconstructions. Med Eng Phys 33(2):226–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Ebinger T, Goetz J, Dolan L, Phisitkul P (2013) 3D model analysis of existing CT syndesmosis measurements. Iowa Orthop J 33:40

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Stufkens SA, Barg A, Bolliger L, Stucinskas J, Knupp M, Hintermann B (2011) Measurement of the medial distal tibial angle. Foot Ankle Int 32(3):288–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Victor J, Van Doninck D, Labey L, Van Glabbeek F, Parizel P, Bellemans J (2009) A common reference frame for describing rotation of the distal femur. Bone Joint J 91(5):683–690

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Lintz F, Barton T, Millet M, Harries WJ, Hepple S, Winson IG (2012) Ground reaction force calcaneal offset: a new measurement of hindfoot alignment. Foot Ankle Surg 18(1):9–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Arunakul M, Amendola A, Gao Y, Goetz JE, Femino JE, Phisitkul P (2013) Tripod index: a new radiographic parameter assessing foot alignment. Foot Ankle Int 34(10):1411–1420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Lintz F, Welck M, Bernasconi A, Thornton B, James CNP, Singh D, Goldberg A (2017) 3D biometrics for hindfoot alignment using weightbearing CT. Foot Ankle Int. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071100717690806

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Ludlow JB, Ivanovic M (2014) Weightbearing CBCT, MDCT, and 2D imaging dosimetry of the foot and ankle. Int J Diag Imag 1(2):p1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Barg A, Saltzman CL (2014) Single-stage supramalleolar osteotomy for coronal plane deformity. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 7(4):277–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Van Gestel L, Van Bouwel S, Somville J (2015) Surgical treatment of the adult acquired flexible flatfoot. Acta Orthop Belgica 81(2):172–183

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Ir. Karim Chellaoui, as a clinical engineer for his attributive remarks to the study design and thorough review of the statistics. The linguistic and structural support was provided by Maxwell Weinberg, research assistant at the University of Utah and Hannes Van Wynendaele, MLing of Ugent.

CT International Study Group (WBCT ISG), committee members are as follows: Richter M, Barg A, Lintz F, de Cesar Netto C and Burssens A. M Richter: Prof dr M Richter, MD, PhD. Head of the Department of Foot and Ankle Surgery in Rummelsberg and Nuremberg, Germany; A Barg: Prof dr A Barg, MD. Associate Professor of Orthopaedics, University Hospital of Utah, USA; F Lintz: dr F Lintz, Department Foot and Ankle Surgery, Clinique de L’Union in Toulouse, France; C de Cesar Netto: dr de Netto C, Department Foot and Ankle Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, NY, USA. France; Burssens A: Burssens A, MD Resident Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Ghent University Hospital, De Pintelaan 185, 9000 Gent, Belgium.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Consortia

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Burssens.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest or acceptance of external funding.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. For this type of study formal consent was not required.

Additional information

Weightbearing CT International Study Group contributing authors were as follows: M. Richter, A. Barg, F. Lintz, C. de Cesar Netto and A. Burssens.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Burssens, A., Peeters, J., Peiffer, M. et al. Reliability and correlation analysis of computed methods to convert conventional 2D radiological hindfoot measurements to a 3D setting using weightbearing CT. Int J CARS 13, 1999–2008 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-018-1727-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Hindfoot alignment
  • Weightbearing CT
  • Computed radiology
  • Hindfoot correction