Rotation of the first metatarsal (M1) as a potential etiological factor of hallux valgus (HV) deformity was described relatively early in the description of HV pathoanatomy. However, because biplanar radiographs have been the standard method for imaging HV, clinicians primarily developed measurement methods and corrective operations confined to 2 dimensions, medial-lateral and inferior-superior. Recently, as our understanding of HV pathoanatomy has further developed, aided in part by advanced imaging technology, M1 rotation about its axis (“axial rotation”) and its implications for HV deformity and treatment has reemerged. The goal of this review is to summarize M1 rotation in HV from a historical perspective, to present the current understanding of its potential role in the etiology/pathogenesis of HV, and to summarize relevant imaging and operative considerations with respect to M1 rotation. Level of Evidence: Level III, systematic review.

Background: First metatarsal (M1) axial rotation is recognized as a clinically relevant component of hallux valgus deformity. Methods to realign the M1 in 3 dimensions have been developed. One goal of these operations is to restore normal rotation of the first ray. The aim of this study is to provide estimates for the normal distribution of M1 rotation in patients without relevant anatomic pathology. Methods: Using stringent clinical and radiographic criteria, we evaluated a set of plain radiograph and weightbearing computed tomography (WBCT) images of 62 feet from a consecutive patient database. Subjects included had normal foot alignment without bunion symptoms. M1 rotation of each foot was measured using 2 unique methods (Saltzman et al and Kim et al methods). Measurement of rotation was performed by 2 observers from coronal WBCT images. Mean values and confidence intervals (CIs) of M1 rotation were calculated for each method. Inter- and intraobserver reliability values were also reported. Results: Mean M1 rotation values of 2.1 degrees (95% CI: 0.9-3.4) and 6.1 degrees (95% CI: 4.4-7.8) were identified using the Saltzman et al and Kim et al methods, respectively. Inter- and intraobserver reliability values were interpreted as excellent for both methods. Conclusion: In this study, we describe the natural distribution of the M1 axial rotation in subjects without bunion or other identifiable bony foot deformities. This information should provide a normative reference for surgeons correcting rotational issues of the first metatarsal. Level of Evidence: Level III.

Background: The association between forefoot and hindfoot position for planus and cavus feet is fundamental to the treatment of these deformities. However, no studies have evaluated the association between hindfoot alignment and first metatarsal (M1) axial rotation. Understanding this possible relationship may help to understand the deformity and improve patient care. The purpose of this study is to determine a correlation between hindfoot alignment and metatarsal rotation as assessed by weightbearing computed tomography (WBCT). Methods: Patients who underwent weightbearing plain radiography (WBPR) and WBCT between 2015 and 2018 were evaluated. Hindfoot alignment was measured with the calcaneal moment arm (CMA). M1 rotation was measured using the Kim and Saltzman angles. Patient subgroups were created according to the severity of valgus/varus hindfoot alignment. Statistical analyses were performed to evaluate for association between variables. Results: Among the 196 patient feet included in the study, the average CMA was 6.0 ± 16.2 mm. The average Kim and Saltzman angles were 7.7 ± 12.9 degrees and 2.8 ± 13.1 degrees, respectively. The average Meary angle was 182.0 ± 11.9 degrees. A moderately strong association was found between the CMA and the Saltzman ( r = 0.641, P < .01) and Kim angles ( r = 0.615, P < .01). Hindfoot valgus was associated with M1 pronation and hindfoot varus with M1 supination. Additionally, inverse relationships between the Meary angle and the Saltzman ( r = −0.600, P < .01) and Kim angles ( r = −0.529, P < .01) were identified. Conclusion: In this well-defined cohort, we found substantial correlation between hindfoot alignment and M1 rotation. Hindfoot valgus was associated with M1 pronation, and hindfoot varus was associated with M1 supination. Surgeons correcting cavovarus/planovalgus deformities should be aware of this association and evaluate the need for first-ray derotation. Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective cohort study.

No abstract

No abstract

Purpose The aim of this study is to systematically review the current, relevant literature and provide a thorough understanding of the various open surgical approaches utilized to gain access to the talar dome for treatment of osteochondral lesions. Realizing the limits of access from soft tissue exposures and osteotomies, with and without external distraction, will help surgeons to select the appropriate approach for each individual clinical situation. Methods A literature search was performed using three major medical databases: PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus, and Embase. The Quality Appraisal for Cadaveric Studies (QUACS) scale was used to assess the methodological quality of each included study. Results Of 3108 reviewed articles, nine cadaveric studies (113 limbs from 83 cadavers) evaluating the accessibility of the talar dome were included in the inal analysis. Most of these (7/9 studies) investigated talar dome access in the context of treating osteochondral lesions of the talus (OLTs) requiring perpendicular visualization of the involved region. Five surgical approaches (anteromedial; AM, anterolateral; AL, posteromedial; PM, posterolateral; PL, and direct posterior via an Achilles tendon splitting; DP), four types of osteotomy (anterolateral tibial, medial malleolar, distal ibular, and plafondplasty), and two methods of distraction (Hintermann retractor and external ixator) were used among the included studies. The most commonly used methods quantiied talar access in the sagittal plane (6/9 studies, 66.7%). The greatest exposure of the talar dome can be achieved perpendicularly by performing an additional malleolar osteotomy (90.9% for lateral, and 100% for medial). The methodological quality of all included studies was determined to be satisfactory. Conclusion Gaining perpendicular access to the central portion of the talar dome, measured in the sagittal plane, has clear limitations via soft tissue approaches either medially or laterally from the anterior or posterior aspects of the ankle. It is possible to access a greater talar dome area in a non-perpendicular fashion, especially from the posterior soft tissue approach. Various types of osteotomies can provide greater accessibility to the talar dome. This systematic review can help surgeons to select the appropriate approach for treatment of OLTs in each individual patient preoperatively. Level of evidence Level IV.

Background: Recent work has reported a significant association between first metatarsal (M1) rotation and hindfoot alignment, with the finding of a moderate association between the calcaneal moment arm (CMA) and 2 M1 pronation angular measures: Saltzman ( r = 0.641, P < .01) and Kim ( r = 0.615, P < .01). The aim of the current post hoc investigation was to determine if this association is related with Meary angle. Methods: We reanalyzed previously published data set separating patients into 2 groups: (1) those with normal Meary angle (n = 128) and (2) those with abnormal Meary angle (n = 147). Hindfoot alignment and M1 rotation were measured on weightbearing computed tomography. Statistical analyses were performed to evaluate for association between these variables among the groups. Results: The correlation between CMA and M1 rotation of the entire cohort was r = 0.577 (Saltzman ankle) and r = 0.540 (Kim angle). For the subset with a normal Meary angle, this association was negligible (Saltzman and Kim angles, r = 0.194 and 0.240, respectively). Conversely, for the abnormal Meary angle subset, the association was substantial (Saltzman and Kim angles, r = 0.733 and 0.675, respectively). Conclusion: Patients presenting with an abnormal Meary angle and hindfoot deformity have a high likelihood of manifesting a proportionate degree of M1 rotation. Level of Evidence: Level III, Retrospective Cohort Study.

Introduction The primary aim of this investigation was to systematically review relevant literature of various imaging modalities (magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), stress radiography and ultrasonography) in the assessment of patients with a medial collateral ligament (MCL) injury. Materials and methods A systematic literature review of articles indexed in PubMed and Cochrane library was performed. Original research reporting data associated with medial gapping, surgical, and clinical findings associated with MCL injuries were considered for inclusion. The methodological quality of each inclusion was also assessed using a verified tool. Results Twenty-three imaging studies (magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) n = 14; ultrasonography n = 6; radiography n = 3) were ultimately included into the review. A total of 808 injured, and 294 control, knees were assessed. Interobserver reliabilities were reported in radiographic and ultrasonographic investigations with almost perfect agreement. MRI studies demonstrated agreement ranging between substantial to almost perfect. Intraobserver reliability was only reported in radiographic studies pertinent to medial gapping and was found to be almost perfect. Correlation of MRI with clinical findings was moderate to strong (65–92%). Additionally, MRI imaging was more sensitive in the detection of MCL lesions when compared to clinical examination. However, when compared to surgical findings, MRI underestimated the grade of instability in up to 21% of cases. Furthermore, MRI showed relatively inferior performance in the identification of the exact MCL-lesion location when compared to surgical findings. Interestingly, preoperative clinical examination was slightly inferior to stress radiography in the detection of MCL lesions. However, clinical testing under general anaesthesia performed similar to stress radiography. The methodological quality analysis showed a low risk of bias regarding patient selection and index testing in each imaging modality. Conclusion MRI can reliably diagnose an MCL lesion but demonstrates limitations in its ability to predict the specific lesion location or grade of MCL instability. Ultrasonography is a widely available, radiation free modality, but is rarely used in clinical practice for detecting MCL lesions and clinical or surgical correlates are scarce. Stress radiography findings correlate with surgical findings but clinical correlations are missing in the literature. Level of evidence IV.