João David Costa*, Maribel Gomes, Miguel Rocha, Fernando Macedo, João Lucas and João Moura

Hospital Senhora da Oliveira, Guimarães, Portugal

*Corresponding Author: João David Costa, Hospital Senhora da Oliveira, Guimarães, Portugal.

Received: April 10, 2023; Published: May 10, 2023

Summary

Background: Hallux valgus (HV) is one of the most frequent pathologies of the forefoot. Diagnosis and treatment depend on several factors. To evaluate patients with HV measurements of hallux valgus angle (HVA) and intermetatarsal angle (IMA) by traditional midaxial method are the most common strategies used nowadays. Therefore, it is important to study interreader reliability (IRR) of both angles on pre- and post-operative.

Purpose: Determine intrareader and interreader reliability of HVA and IMA both pre-operative and postoperative.

Methods: A sample of 48 patients (55 feet) was selected from the patients above the age of 18 years, with hallux valgus, who underwent osteotomy of the first metatarsal in an orthopedics’ department. All had weight-bearing pre-operative and post-operative anterior-posterior (AP) and lateral X-rays performed. Three readers measured HVA and IMA both pre-operative and post-operative using the traditional midaxial method. To ensure the uniformity of the measurement technique the 3 readers evaluated eight training cases together. All readers repeated 20% of the measurements after one week. Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) were obtained.

Results: For IMA pre- and post-operative ICC were .779 and .773, respectively. For HVA pre- and postoperative ICC were .798 and .932. Standard error of measurement was considerably below mean values for both angles on both moments. Intrareader reliability results showed very high reliability.

Conclusions: IRR was high (>.700) for both HVA and IMA on pre-operative and post-operative. However, results showed an advantage of HVA when compared with IMA, considering higher IRR and better precision of the estimates

Keywords: Hallux Valgus; Radiographic Measurements; Hallux Valgus Angle; Intermetatarsal Angle; Interreader Reliability

References

1. Mann RACM. “Adult Hallux Valgus”. In: Coughlin MJMR, editor. Surgery of the foot and ankle. St. Louis: Mosby; (1999): 150-175.
2. Nix S., et al. “Prevalence of hallux valgus in the general population: a systematic review and meta-analysis”. Journal of Foot and Ankle Research 3 (2010): 21.
3. Faber FW., et al. “Mobility of the first tarsometatarsal joint in relation to hallux valgus deformity: anatomical and biomechanical aspects”. Foot and Ankle International10 (1999): 651-656.
4. Ferrari J and Malone-Lee J. “The shape of the metatarsal head as a cause of hallux abductovalgus”. Foot Ankle International3 (2002): 236-242.
5. Kirkup JR., et al. “The hallux and rheumatoid arthritis”. Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica5 (1977): 527-544.
6. Benvenuti F., et al. “Foot pain and disability in older persons: an epidemiologic survey.” Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 43 (1995): 479-484.
7. Vanore JV., et al. “Clinical Practice Guideline First Metatarsophalangeal Joint Disorders Panel of the American College of Foot and Ankle Surgeons. Diagnosis and treatment of first metatarsophalangeal joint disorders. Section 1: Hallux valgus”. Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery3 (2003): 112-123.
8. Hardy R and Clapham JCR. “Observations on hallux valgus”. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 33B (1951): 376-391.
9. Laporta G., et al. “X-ray evaluation of hallux abductovalgus deformity”. Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association 64 (1974): 544-566.
10. Palladino SJ. “Preoperative evaluation of the bunion patient: etiology, biomechanics, clinical and radiographic assessment”. In Textbook of Bunion Surgery, pp 1-87, edited by J Gerbert, Futura Publishing, Mount Kisco, NY (1991).
11. Sorto LA., et al. “Hallux abductus interphalangeus: etiology, x-ray evaluation and treatment”. Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association 66 (1976): 384-396.
12. Whitney AK. “Radiographic Charting Tecnhique”. PCPM Press, Philadelphia (1978).
13. Spinner SM., et al. “Radiographic criteria in the assessment of hallux abductus deformities”. Journal of Foot Surgery 23 (1984): 25-30.
14. Mann RA. “Bunion surgery: decision making”. Orthopedics 13 (1990): 951-957.
15. Saltzman CL., et al. “Reliability of standard foot radiographic measurements”. Foot Ankle International 15 (1994): 661-665.
16. Hardy RH and Clapham JCR. “Observations on hallux valgus”. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery Am. 33-B (1951): 376-391.
17. Steel MW., et al. “Radiographic measurements of the normal adult foot”. Foot and Ankle International 1 (1980): 151-158.
18. Lee KM., et al. “Reliability and relationship of radiographic measurements in hallux valgus”. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research9 (2012): 2613-2621.
19. Weir JP. “Quantifying Test-Retest Reliability Using The Intraclass Correlation Coefficient And The Sem”. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research1 (2005): 231-240.
20. Srivastava S., et al. “Radiographic angles in hallux valgus: comparison between manual and computer-assisted measurements”. Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery6 (2010): 523-528.
21. Bryant A., et al. “A comparison of radiographic measurements in normal, hallux valgus, and hallux limitus feet”. Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery1 (2000): 39-43.
22. D'Arcangelo PR., et al. “Radiographic correlates of hallux valgus severity in older people”. Journal of Foot and Ankle Research 3 (2010): 20.
23. Lamm BM., et al. “Normal foot and ankle radiographic angles, measurements, and reference points”. Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery5 (2016): 991-998.
24. Saro C., et al. “Reliability of radiological and cosmetic measurements in hallux valgus”. Acta Radiology8 (2005): 843-851.
25. Shima H., et al. “Radiographic measurements in patients with hallux valgus before and after proximal crescentic osteotomy”. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery Am.6 (2009): 1369-1376.
26. Condon F., et al. “The first intermetatarsal angle in hallux valgus: an analysis of measurement reliability and the error involved”. Foot and Ankle International 23 (2002): 717-721.
27. Farber DC., et al. “Goniometrie versus computerized angle measurement in assessing hallux valgus”. Foot and Ankle International 26 (2005): 234-238.
28. Panchbhavi VK and Trevino S. “Comparison between manual and computer assisted measurements of hallux valgus parameters”. Foot and Ankle International 25 (2004): 708-711.

Citation

Citation: João David Costa., et al. “Intrareader and Interreader Reliability of Radiographic Measurements in Hallux Valgus”.Acta Scientific Orthopaedics 6.6 (2023): 31-35.

Copyright

Copyright: © 2023 João David Costa., et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.