Medial Distal Tibial Angle: Comparison Between Weightbearing Mortise View and Hindfoot Alignment View

被引:56
作者
Barg, Alexej [1 ]
Harris, Michael D. [1 ]
Henninger, Heath B. [1 ]
Amendola, Richard L. [1 ]
Saltzman, Charles L. [1 ]
Hintermann, Beat [1 ]
Anderson, Andrew E. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84108 USA
关键词
Medial Distal Tibial Angle; Mortise View; Hindfoot Alignment View; Deformity Assessment; Interater Correlation; Intrarater Correlation; ANKLE; VARUS; OSTEOTOMY; AGREEMENT;
D O I
10.3113/FAI.2012.0655
中图分类号
R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学(修复外科学)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: The medial distal tibial angle (MDTA) is used to determine ankle alignment. The mortise view is the standard to measure MDTA, but the hindfoot alignment view (HAV) has become popular. The MDTA may vary between views, influencing the choice of surgery. Methods: The MDTA was compared between the mortise and HAY in 146 ankles. MDTA was correlated to age and sagittal tibial tilt for each view. Differences in MDTA by gender and ethnicity were assessed. Diagnostic agreement (yarns, valgus, normal) between views was calculated. Clinical assessment of alignment was determined and percent agreement between clinical and radiographic alignment was quantified. Results: The MDTA measured from the mortise view and HAV radiographs was 89.0 (range, 81 to 96 degrees; SD = 2.8) degrees and 86.0 (range, 73 to 95 degrees; SD = 3.5) degrees, respectively. The MDTA was comparable for both genders for mortise (p = 0.356) and HAV (p = 0.621). The MDTA was comparable in all ethnic groups for mortise view (p = 0.616) and HAV (p = 0.916). Correlation between the measured MDTA and age was not statistically significant for both the mortise (r = 0.118; p = 0.158) and HAV (r = 0.148; p = 0.074). In only 47.3% of all ankles was the radiographic diagnosis of alignment the same between views. Agreement between clinical and radiographic classifications was 60.3% for the mortise view and 52.8% for the HAV. Conclusion: Substantial disagreement in primary alignment was found between the mortise and HAY as quantified by the MDTA. Agreement between clinical and radiographic alignment was also poor. Clinical Relevance: Advanced imaging such as CT or MRI may better describe ankle alignment.
引用
收藏
页码:655 / 661
页数:7
相关论文
共 21 条
[1]   Acetabular Cartilage Thickness: Accuracy of Three-Dimensional Reconstructions from Multidetector CT Arthrograms in a Cadaver Study [J].
Allen, Bryce C. ;
Peters, Christopher L. ;
Brown, Nicholas A. T. ;
Anderson, Andrew E. .
RADIOLOGY, 2010, 255 (02) :544-552
[2]  
Bland JM, 1999, STAT METHODS MED RES, V8, P135, DOI 10.1177/096228029900800204
[3]   STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT [J].
BLAND, JM ;
ALTMAN, DG .
LANCET, 1986, 1 (8476) :307-310
[4]   Dynamic pedobarograph in evaluation of varus and valgus foot deformities [J].
Chang, CH ;
Miller, F ;
Schuyler, J .
JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC ORTHOPAEDICS, 2002, 22 (06) :813-818
[5]   EQUIVALENCE OF WEIGHTED KAPPA AND INTRACLASS CORRELATION COEFFICIENT AS MEASURES OF RELIABILITY [J].
FLEISS, JL ;
COHEN, J .
EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT, 1973, 33 (03) :613-619
[6]  
Inman V. T., 1976, JOINTS ANKLE
[7]   CLINICAL RATING SYSTEMS FOR THE ANKLE-HINDFOOT, MIDFOOT, HALLUX, AND LESSER TOES [J].
KITAOKA, HB ;
ALEXANDER, IJ ;
ADELAAR, RS ;
NUNLEY, JA ;
MYERSON, MS ;
SANDERS, M .
FOOT & ANKLE INTERNATIONAL, 1994, 15 (07) :349-353
[8]   The surgical tibiotalar angle: A radiologic study [J].
Knupp, M ;
Ledermann, H ;
Magerkurth, O ;
Hinterman, B .
FOOT & ANKLE INTERNATIONAL, 2005, 26 (09) :713-716
[9]   Classification and Treatment of Supramalleolar Deformities [J].
Knupp, Markus ;
Stufkens, Sjoerd A. S. ;
Bolliger, Lilianna ;
Barg, Alexej ;
Hintermann, Beat .
FOOT & ANKLE INTERNATIONAL, 2011, 32 (11) :1023-1031
[10]   Total Ankle Replacement and Supramalleolar Osteotomies for Malaligned Osteoarthritic Ankles [J].
Knupp, Markus ;
Stufkens, Sjoerd A. S. ;
Bolliger, Lilianna ;
Brunner, Samuel ;
Hintermann, Beat .
TECHNIQUES IN FOOT AND ANKLE SURGERY, 2010, 9 (04) :175-181