Journal of Korean Foot and Ankle Society (대한족부족관절학회지)

Korean Foot & Ankle Society (대한족부족관절학회)
권호 표지

The Computerized Measurement for the Radiological Severity of Hallux Valgus

무지 외반증의 중증도에 대한 전산화 영상 계측

  • Kang, Chang-Nam (Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Hanyang University College of Medicine) ;
  • Choi, Kyung-Jin (Choi's Orthopedics) ;
  • Lee, Doo-Yeon (Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Hanyang University College of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, Sang-Duk (Department of Anesthesia, Hanyang University College of Medicine) ;
  • Sung, Il-Hoon (Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Hanyang University College of Medicine)
  • 강창남 (한양대학교 의과대학 정형외과학교실) ;
  • 최경진 (최경진정형외과의원) ;
  • 이두연 (한양대학교 의과대학 정형외과학교실) ;
  • 김상덕 (한양대학교 의과대학 마취과학교실) ;
  • 성일훈 (한양대학교 의과대학 정형외과학교실)
  • Published : 2009.06.15
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: To study the reliability of intra- and interobserver reliability in angular measurement of hallux valgus deformity by assessing hallux valgus angle (HVA) and the 1st to 2nd intermetatarsal angle (1-2 IMA) through using computerized system. Materials and Methods: 20 cases of moderate to severe hallux valgus patients were included in this study. With the standing anteroposterior view of foot, the HVA and 1-2 IMA were calculated by computerized measurement system of Infinity cooperation, called ${\pi}$-view, with its software tools. Using the statistical software program, SPSS (version 12th), we interpreted the results which were measured by two independent observers. Results: In the intraobserver measurement, the HVA of observer A showed reliability ($32.5^{\circ}{\pm}6.9$ and $33.1^{\circ}{\pm}6.8$)(p<0.05). 1-2 IMA in observer A was not regarded as reliable ($16.9^{\circ}{\pm}2.8$ and $17.1^{\circ}{\pm}2.8$)(p>0.05). In the results of observer B, HVAs were measured as $35.7^{\circ}{\pm}7.6$ and $36.2^{\circ}{\pm}7.7$, and were not reliable (p>0.05). 1-2 IMA in observer B was not reliable as well ($17.0^{\circ}{\pm}0.8$ and $20.8^{\circ}{\pm}1.5$)(p>0.05). In the interobservers' measurements, the first and the second results of HVA were $3.2^{\circ}{\pm}3.6$ and $3.1^{\circ}{\pm}3.1$, reliable within the 95% confidence interval (p<0.05). 1-2 IMAs were $0.1^{\circ}{\pm}1.9$ and $3.73^{\circ}{\pm}1.3$, which were not reliable (p>0.05). Conclusion: In the angular measurement of the hallux valgus by computerized system, the HVA and 1-2 IMA showed less error range in the interobserver's results, compared with the previous studies about the manual measurement. However, our results failed to show the statistical reliability of intra- and interobserver's measuring. Therefore, even the computerized angular measurements in the severity of hallux valgus require development of the measuring methods and software tools.

Keywords

References

  1. Van Vo H, Safiedine AM, Short T and Merrill T: A comparison of 4 common methods of hand-measured techniques with a computerized technique to measure the first intermetatarsal angle. J Foot Ankle Surg, 43: 395-399, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jfas.2004.09.005
  2. Shea KG, Stevens PM, Nelson M, Smith JT, Masters KS and Yandow S: A comparison of manual versus computer-assisted radiographic measurement. intraobserver measurement variability for Cobb angles. Spine, 23: 551-555, 1998. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199803010-00007
  3. Coughlin MJ, Saltzman CL and Nunley JA 2nd: Angular measurements in the evaluation of hallux valgus deformities: a report of the ad hoc committee of the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society on angular measurements; Foot Ankle Int, 23: 68-74, 2002.
  4. Chiodo CP, Schon LC and Myerson MS: Clinical results with the Ludloff osteotomy for correction of adult hallux valgus. Foot Ankle Int, 25: 532-536, 2004.
  5. Panchbhavi VK and Trevino S: Comparison between manual and computer-assisted measurements of hallux valgus parameters. Foot Ankle Int, 25: 708-711, 2004.
  6. Hamers S, Freyschmidt J and Neitzel U: Digital radiography with a large-scale electronic flat-panel detector vs. screenfilm radiography: observer preference in clinical skeletal diagnostics. Eur Radiol, 11: 1753-1759, 2001. https://doi.org/10.1007/s003300100830
  7. Farber DC, DeOrio JK and Steel MW 3rd: Goniometric versus computerized angle measurement in assessing hallux valgus. Foot Ankle Int, 26: 234-238, 2005.
  8. Coughlin MJ: Hallux valgus. J Bone Joint Surg, 78-A: 932- 966, 1996.
  9. Smith RW, Reynolds JC and Stewart MJ: Hallux valgus assessment: report of research committee of American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society. Foot Ankle, 5: 92-103, 1984. https://doi.org/10.1177/107110078400500208
  10. Mann RA and Coughiln MJ: Hallux valgus--etiology, anatomy, treatment and surgical considerations. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 157: 31-41, 1981.
  11. Schneider W, Csepan R, Kasparek M, Pinggera O and Knahr K: Intra- and interobserver repeatability of radiographic measurements in hallux surgery: improvement and validation of a method. Acta Orthop Scand, 73: 670-673, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1080/000164702321039651
  12. Resch S, Ryd L, Stenström A, Johnsson K and Reynisson K: Measuring hallux valgus: a comparison of conventional radiography and clinical parameters with regard to measurement accuracy. Foot Ankle Int, 16: 267-270, 1995. https://doi.org/10.1177/107110079501600504
  13. Jones DH: Modern concepts in the treatment of hallux valgus. J Bone Joint Surg, 88-B: 276, 2006.
  14. Hardy RH and Clapham JC: Observations on hallux valgus; based on a controlled series. J Bone Joint Surg, 33-B: 376- 392, 1951.
  15. Pique-Vidal C, Maled-García I, Arabi-Moreno J and Vila J: Radiographic angles in hallux valgus: differences between measurements made manually and with a computerized program. Foot Ankle Int, 27: 175-180, 2006.
  16. Menz HB and Munteanu SE: Radiographic validation of the Manchester scale for the classification of hallux valgus deformity. Rheumatology (Oxford), 44: 1061-1066, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/keh687
  17. De Carvalho A, Vialle R, Thomsen L, et al: Reliability analysis for manual measurement of coronal plane deformity in adolescent scoliosis. Are 30 x 90 cm plain films better than digitized small films? Eur Spine J, 16: 1615-1620, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-007-0437-4
  18. Mann RA, Rudicel S and Graves SC: Repair of hallux valgus with a distal soft-tissue procedure and proximal metatarsal osteotomy: A long-term follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg, 74-A: 124-129, 1992.
  19. Schneider W, Csepan R and Knahr K: Reproducibility of the radiographic metatarsophalangeal angle in hallux surgery. J Bone Joint Surg, 85-A: 494-499, 2003.
  20. Condon F, Kaliszer M, Conhyea D, O’Donnell T, Shaju A and Masterson E: The first intermetatarsal angle in hallux valgus: an analysis of measurement reliability and the error involved. Foot Ankle Int, 23: 717-721, 2002.
  21. Coughlin MJ and Freund E: The reliability of angular measurements in hallux valgus deformities. Foot Ankle Int, 22: 369-379, 2001.
  22. Kilmartin TE, Barrington RL and Wallace WA: A controlled prospective trial ofa foot orthosis for juvenile hallux valgus. J Bone Joint Surg, 76-B: 210-214, 1994.
  23. Vittetoe DA, Saltzman CL, Krieg JC and Brown TD: Validity and reliability of the first distal metatarsal articular angle. Foot Ankle Int, 15: 541-547, 1994. https://doi.org/10.1177/107110079401501004