Weightbearing CT Scan of Severe Flexible Pes Planus Deformities

2008 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 199-204 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melanie Ferri ◽  
Angela V. Scharfenberger ◽  
Gord Goplen ◽  
Timothy R. Daniels ◽  
Dawn Pearce
Keyword(s):  
Ct Scan ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohamed Abdelaziz Elghazy ◽  
Noortje C. Hagemeijer ◽  
Daniel Guss ◽  
Ahmed El-Hawary ◽  
Anne H. Johnson ◽  
...  

2012 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 282-287 ◽  
Author(s):  
Koen Peeters ◽  
Julien Schreuer ◽  
Fien Burg ◽  
Catherine Behets ◽  
Saskia Van Bouwel ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 2473011420S0004
Author(s):  
Ian Foran ◽  
Nasima Mehraban ◽  
Stephen K. Jacobsen ◽  
Daniel D. Bohl ◽  
Kamran S. Hamid ◽  
...  

Category: Hindfoot; Midfoot/Forefoot Introduction/Purpose: The Coleman block test has traditionally been used to distinguish between forefoot- and hindfoot-driven deformity as well as flexibility of cavovarus deformity. However, there has been no validation of the Coleman block test using x- rays or weightbearing CT scan. The purpose of this study was to compare hindfoot alignment in cavovarus feet with and without the Coleman block using clinical exam, x-ray, and weightbearing CT scan. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 7 feet in 7 patients. The average age was 57, there were 5 males, and the average BMI was 34.7. Average calcaneal pitch was 30 degrees. Clinical measurements were made using standing talocalcaneal angle (STCA) and resting calcaneal stance position (RCSP) with and without a Coleman block using a camera positioned at 0 degrees to the heels. Hindfoot angle (HFA) was measured off of Saltzman-view x-rays and off of weightbearing CT coronal reconstructions with and without the Coleman block. Finally, foot ankle offset (FAO) was measured with and without the Coleman block from weightbearing CT using Cubeview TALAS software. Differences before and after Coleman block were measured using paired t- testing and correlations between different hindfoot alignment measurements were made using Pearson correlation coefficients. Results:: The average change in STCA before and after Coleman block placement was 2.9 degrees (7.14 varus without block, 4.28 degrees of varus with block; p<0.05). The average change in hindfoot angle before and after Coleman block using X-ray was 7.4 degrees (14 degrees varus without block, 6 degrees varus with block; p=0.08), and using CT was 3.9 degrees (14 degrees varus without block, 10 degrees varus with block; p= 0.06). There was no significant change in FAO before and after Coleman block testing. STCA was best-correlated with FAO (R= 0.7, p<0.05). CT HFA was also well-correlated with FAO (R=0.68, p<0.05). There was lesser correlation between X-ray HFA and FAO (R=0.608, p<0.05) and X-ray HFA and SCTA (p=0.63, p<0.05). Conclusion:: Although Coleman block testing resulted in a decrease in varus, no patient had full re-constitution of physiologic hindfoot valgus with any measurement method. This suggests that either the forefoot was a partial (but never a complete) ‘driver’ of hindfoot varus deformity, or that there was some degree of rigidity in all patients tested. FAO did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference with and without Coleman block on this small sample size. FAO was best correlated with both clinical exam and CT HFA measurements. Clinical exam and weightbearing CT may be more reliable than radiographs in measuring cavovarus hindfoot alignment. [Figure: see text]


2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 2473011418S0019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chris Cychosz ◽  
Alyssa Johnson ◽  
Phinit Phisitkul

Category: Bunion Introduction/Purpose: Hallux Valgus is a common condition often resulting in chronic pain and disability. However, the precise etiology of Hallux Valgus deformity remains poorly understood and likely results from a combination of intrinsic and extrinsic factors. There is conflicting evidence regarding as to whether hallux valgus deformity is associated with increased pronation of the first metatarsal. The purpose of this study was to investigate the correlation between hallux valgus and pronation of the first metatarsal in relation to other structural parameters of the foot. Methods: Eighty-five consecutive patients with clinically and radiographically diagnosed hallux valgus, pes planus, or cavovarus that underwent imaging with weightbearing CT between January 2014 and May 2016 were retrospectively enrolled and compared to a control group consisting of patients who with scans completed for indications unrelated to hallux valgus (e.g. ankle arthritis) and were determined to have normal foot structure. Using a weightbearing CT axial view, the alpha angle of the first metatarsal was measured and correlated with other radiographic parameters on plain weightbearing radiographs including Meary’s angle, hallux valgus angle, intermetatarsal angle, and calcaneal pitch. Results: There were 39 males and 46 females (91 feet) with a mean age of 47.16 (SD14.89) years and BMI of 32.99 (SD 7.35) kg/m2 included in this study. Mean pronation of the first metatarsal significantly (p<0.001) different in all group compared to the control: 15.23 (SD 7.96) in the hallux valgus group, 15.22 (SD 8.56) in the pes planus group, negative 0.23 (SD 5.99) in the cavovarus group, and 6.98 (SD 5.09) in the control group. There was moderate correlation between meary’s angle, tripod index, calcaneal pitch, and the alpha angle (negative 0.70, 0.65, negative 0.53, respectively) with a p-value < 0.001. HVA demonstrated little correlation with the measured alpha angle (0.23), p<0.03. Conclusion: Patients with hallux valgus deformity demonstrated a significantly higher pronation of the first metatarsal compared to the control group. However, a greater number of patients in the hallux valgus group had flatfoot deformity and further analysis revealed a greater correlation between foot type and pronation of the first metatarsal. Weightbearing CT is a reasonable way to image complex forefoot deformities prior to bunion surgery and it is important to take into account rotation of the first metatarsal in bunion surgery.


2016 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 2473011416S0013
Author(s):  
Ettore Vulcano ◽  
Joseph A. Tracey ◽  
Mark S. Myerson

Author(s):  
Michael Willey ◽  
Jocelyn Compton ◽  
Conor Kleweno ◽  
Julie Agel ◽  
Elizabeth Scott ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 35 (10) ◽  
pp. 1057-1062 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fabrice Colin ◽  
Tamara Horn Lang ◽  
Lukas Zwicky ◽  
Beat Hintermann ◽  
Markus Knupp

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document