No abstract

No abstract

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.

Background: Hindfoot alignment view (HAV) radiographs are widely utilized for 2-dimensional (2D) radiographic assessment of hindfoot alignment; however, the development of weightbearing computed tomography (WBCT) may provide more accurate methods of quantifying 3-dimensional (3D) hindfoot alignment. The aim of this study was to compare the 2D calcaneal moment arm measurements on HAV radiographs with WBCT. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 375 consecutive patients with both HAV radiographs and WBCT imaging. Measurement of the 2D hindfoot alignment moment arm was compared between both imaging modalities. The potential confounding influence of valgus/varus/neutral alignment, presence of hardware, and motion artifact were further analyzed. Results: The intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) of interobserver and intraobserver reliability for measurements with both imaging modalities were excellent. Both modalities were highly correlated (Spearman coefficient, 0.930; P < .001). HAV radiographs exhibited a mean calcaneal moment arm difference of 3.9 mm in the varus direction compared with WBCT (95% CI, –4.9 to 12.8). The difference of hindfoot alignment between both modalities was comparable in subgroups with neutral/valgus/varus alignment, presence of hardware, and motion artifact. Conclusion: Both HAV radiographs and WBCT are highly reliable and highly correlated imaging methods for assessing hindfoot alignment. Measurements were not influenced by severe malalignment, the presence of hardware, or motion artifact on WBCT. On average, HAV radiographs overestimated 3.9 mm of varus alignment as compared with WBCT. Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective comparative study.