Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Background The goals of lower limb reconstruction are to restore alignment, to improve function, and to reduce pain. However, it remains unclear whether alignment of the lower limb and hindfoot are associated because an accurate assessment of hindfoot deformities has been limited by superposition on plain radiography. Consequently, surgeons often overlook hindfoot deformity when planning orthopaedic procedures of the lower limb. Therefore, we used weight-bearing CT to quantify hindfoot deformity related to lower limb alignment in the coronal plane. Questions/purposes (1) Is lower-limb alignment different in varus than in valgus hindfoot deformities for patients with and without tibiotalar joint osteoarthritis? (2) Does a hindfoot deformity correlate with lower-limb alignment in patients with and without tibiotalar joint osteoarthritis? (3) Is joint line orientation different in varus than in valgus hindfoot deformities for patients with tibiotalar joint osteoarthritis? (4) Does a hindfoot deformity correlate with joint line orientation in patients with tibiotalar joint osteoarthritis? Methods Between January 2015 and December 2017, one foot and ankle surgeon obtained weightbearing CT scans as second-line imaging for 184 patients with ankle and hindfoot disorders. In 69% (127 of 184 patients) of this cohort, a combined weightbearing CT and full-leg radiograph was performed when symptomatic hindfoot deformities were present. Of those, 85% (109 of 127 patients) with a median (range) age of 53 years (23 to 75) were confirmed eligible based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria of this retrospective comparative study. The Takakura classification was used to divide the cohort into patients with (n = 74) and without (n = 35) osteoarthritis of the tibiotalar joint. Lower-limb measurements, obtained from the full-leg radiographs, consisted of the mechanical tibiofemoral angle, mechanical tibia angle, and proximal tibial joint line angle. Weightbearing CT images were used to determine the hindfoot’s alignment (mechanical hindfoot angle), the tibiotalar joint alignment (distal tibial joint line angle and talar tilt angle) and the subtalar joint alignment (subtalar vertical angle). These values were statistically assessed with an ANOVA and a pairwise comparison was subsequently performed with Tukey’s adjustment. A linear regression analysis was performed using the Pearson correlation coefficient (r). A reliability analysis was performed using the intraclass correlation coefficient. Results Lower limb alignment differed among patients with hindfoot deformity and among patients with or without tibiotalar joint osteoarthritis. In patients with tibiotalar joint osteoarthritis, we found knee valgus in presence of hindfoot varus deformity and knee varus in presence of hindfoot valgus deformity (mechanical tibiofemoral angle 0.3 ± 2.6° versus -1.8 ± 2.1°; p < 0.001; mechanical tibia angle -1.4 ± 2.2° versus -4.3 ± 1.9°; p < 0.001). Patients without tibiotalar joint osteoarthritis demonstrated knee varus in the presence of hindfoot varus deformity compared with knee valgus in presence of hindfoot valgus deformity (mechanical tibiofemoral angle -2.2 ± 2.2° versus 0.9 ± 2.4°; p < 0.001; mechanical tibia angle -1.8 ± 2.1° versus -4.3 ± 1.9°; p < 0.001). Patients with more valgus deformity in the hindfoot tended to have more tibiofemoral varus (r = -0.38) and tibial varus (r = -0.53), when tibiotalar joint osteoarthritis was present (p < 0.001). Conversely, patients with more valgus deformity in the hindfoot tended to have more tibiofemoral valgus (r = 0.4) and tibial valgus (r = 0.46), when tibiotalar joint osteoarthritis was absent (p < 0.001). The proximal joint line of the tibia had greater varus orientation in patients with a hindfoot valgus deformity compared with greater valgus orientation in patients with a hindfoot varus deformity (proximal tibial joint line angle 88.5 ± 2.0° versus 90.6 ± 2.2°; p < 0.05). Patients with more valgus deformity in the hindfoot tended to have more varus angulation of the proximal tibial joint line angle (r = 0.31; p < 0.05). Conclusions In patients with osteoarthritis of the tibiotalar joint, varus angulation of the knee was associated with hindfoot valgus deformity and valgus angulation of the knee was associated with hindfoot varus deformity. Patients without tibiotalar joint osteoarthritis exhibited the same deviation at the level of the knee and hindfoot. These distinct radiographic findings were most pronounced in the alignment of the tibia relative to the hindfoot deformity. This suggests a detailed examination of hindfoot alignment before knee deformity correction at the level of the proximal tibia, to avoid postoperative increase of pre-existing hindfoot deformity. Other differences detected between the radiographic parameters were less pronounced and varied within the subgroups. Future research could identify prospectively which of these parameters contain clinical relevance by progressing osteoarthritis or deformity and how they can be altered by corrective treatment. Level of Evidence Level III, prognostic study.

No abstract

Background: Our purpose was to assess the reliability of measurements of adult-acquired flatfoot deformity (AAFD) taken by investigators of different levels of clinical experience using weightbearing computed tomography (WBCT). Methods: Nineteen AAFD patients underwent WBCT. Three investigators with different levels of clinical experience made AAFD measurements in axial, coronal, and sagittal planes. Intra-and interobserver reliability were assessed. Mean values for each measurement were compared between investigators. Results: After a training protocol, substantial to perfect intra-and interobserver reliability was observed for most measures, regardless of the investigator's experience level. Significant differences between investigators were observed in 2 of 21 measured parameters: medial cuneiform-first metatarsal angle (P = 0.003) and navicular-medial cuneiform angle (P = 0.001). Conclusions: AAFD radiographic measurements can be performed reliably by investigators with different levels of clinical experience using WBCT.

No abstract

Category: Basic Sciences/Biologics Introduction/Purpose: A scientifically sound validated foot and ankle specific outcome measure for different European languages is still missing. Indeed, language-specific cross cultural validation in other languages than English is largely absent. Some outcome measures were validated for specific pathologies such as hallux valgus, ankle arthritis or flatfoot. The European Foot and Ankle Society (EFAS) established in 2013 a Score Committee to develop, validate, and publish a new score, the “EFAS Score”, which is not specific for single pathologies for different European languages. The principal aim of this project was to develop and validate the EFAS Score simultaneously for different European languages. Methods: The EFAS Score was developed and validated in three stages: 1) item (question) identification, 2) item reduction and scale exploration, 3) confirmatory analyses and responsiveness. The following score specifications were chosen: scale/subscale (Likert 0-4), questionnaire based, outcome measure, patient related outcome measurement. For stage 3, data were collected pre- operatively and post-operatively at a minimum follow-up of 3 months and mean follow-up of 6 months. Item reduction, scale exploration, confirmatory analyses and responsiveness were executed using analyses from classical test theory and item response theory. Results: Stage 1 resulted in 31 general and 7 sports related questions. In Stage 2, a 6-item general EFAS Score was constructed using English, German, French and Swedish language data. In Stage 3, internal consistency of the scale was confirmed in seven languages: the original four languages, plus Dutch, Italian and Polish (Cronbach’s Alpha >0.86 in all language versions). Responsiveness was good, with moderate to large effect sizes in all languages, and significant positive association between the EFAS Score and patient-reported improvement. No sound EFAS Sports Score could be constructed. Conclusion: The multi-language EFAS Score has been successfully validated for orthopaedic foot and ankle surgery populations incorporating a wide variety of foot and ankle pathologies, including language-specific validation in seven languages so far (English, German, French, Swedish, Dutch, Italian, Polish). Validation for other languages (Danish, Finnish, Norwegian, Portuguese, Spanish, Turkish) is in progress. All validated score versions are freely available at www.efas.co .

No abstract

Background: We investigated the association between hindfoot residual malalignment assessed on weightbearing computed tomography (WBCT) images and the development of periprosthetic cysts (PPCs) after total ankle replacement (TAR). We hypothesized that PPCs would be found predominantly medially in the varus configuration and laterally in the valgus configuration. Methods: Cases of primary TAR with available WBCT imaging of the ankle were included in this retrospective study. The location of the PPC was marked and the following volumes were calculated: total (TCV), medial (MCV), central (CCV), and lateral (LCV) cyst volumes. Hindfoot alignment was measured as Foot and Ankle Offset (FAO), with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) calculated to define varus (<95% CI) and valgus (>95% CI) groups. Cyst volumes were compared between these 2 groups. The American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) score at the time of the WBCT was also retrieved. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to determine FAO thresholds for predicting an increased risk of PPC. Results: Forty-eight TARs (mean follow-up, 44.6 months) were included, 81% of which had at least 1 PPC. The mean FAO was 0.12% (95% CI, –1.12 to 1.36). Patients with greater residual malalignment ( P < .001) and those with longer follow-up ( P < .001) presented with increased TCV. In varus cases, the MCV was greater than the LCV ( P = .042), with a threshold FAO value of −2.75% or less predicting an increased MCV. In valgus cases, the LCV was greater than the MCV ( P = .049), with a FAO threshold value of 4.5% or more predicting an increased LCV. Conclusion: In this series, the PPC volume after primary TAR significantly correlated with postoperative hindfoot malalignment and longer follow-up. Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective comparative series.