Diagnostic accuracy of measurements in progressive collapsing foot deformity using weight bearing computed tomography: A matched case-control study
Standard
Diagnostic accuracy of measurements in progressive collapsing foot deformity using weight bearing computed tomography: A matched case-control study. / Lintz, François; Bernasconi, Alessio; Li, Shuyuan; Lalevée, Matthieu; Fernando, Céline; Barg, Alexej; Dibbern, Kevin; de Cesar Netto, Cesar.
in: FOOT ANKLE SURG, Jahrgang 28, Nr. 7, 10.2022, S. 912-918.Publikationen: SCORING: Beitrag in Fachzeitschrift/Zeitung › SCORING: Zeitschriftenaufsatz › Forschung › Begutachtung
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Diagnostic accuracy of measurements in progressive collapsing foot deformity using weight bearing computed tomography: A matched case-control study
AU - Lintz, François
AU - Bernasconi, Alessio
AU - Li, Shuyuan
AU - Lalevée, Matthieu
AU - Fernando, Céline
AU - Barg, Alexej
AU - Dibbern, Kevin
AU - de Cesar Netto, Cesar
N1 - Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
PY - 2022/10
Y1 - 2022/10
N2 - BACKGROUND: We aimed to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of known two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) measurements for Progressive Collapsing Foot Deformity (PCFD) in weight-bearing computed tomography (WBCT). We hypothesized that 3D biometrics would have better specificity and sensitivity for PCFD diagnosis than 2D measurements.METHODS: This was a retrospective case-control study, including 28 PCFD feet and 28 controls matched for age, sex and Body Mass Index. Two-dimensional measurements included: axial and sagittal talus-first metatarsal angles (TM1A and TM1S), talonavicular coverage angle (TNCA), forefoot arch angle (FFAA), middle facet incongruence angle (MF°) and uncoverage percentage (MF%). The 3D Foot Ankle Offset (FAO) was obtained using dedicated semi-automatic software. Intra and interobserver reliabilities were assessed. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves were calculated to determine diagnostic accuracy (Area Under the Curve (AUC)), sensitivity and specificity.RESULTS: In PCFD, mean MF% and MF° were respectively 47.2% ± 15.4 and 13.3° ± 5.3 compared with 13.5% ± 8.7 and 5.6° ± 2.9 in controls (p < 0.001). The FAO was 8.1% ± 3.8 in PCFD and 1.4% ± 1.7 in controls (p < 0.001). AUCs were 0.99 (95%CI, 0.98-1) for MF%, 0.96 (95%CI, 0.9-1) for FAO, 0.90 (95%CI, 0.81-0.98) for MF°. For MF%, a threshold value equal or greater than 28.7% had a sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 92.8%. Conversely, a FAO value equal or greater than 4.6% had a specificity of 100% and a sensitivity of 89.2%. All other 2D measurements were significantly different in PCFD and controls (p < 0.001).CONCLUSIONS: MF% and FAO were both accurate measurements for PCFD. MF% demonstrated slightly better specificity. FAO better sensitivity. A combination of threshold values of 28.7% for MF% and 4.6% for FAO yielded 100% sensitivity and specificity.
AB - BACKGROUND: We aimed to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of known two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) measurements for Progressive Collapsing Foot Deformity (PCFD) in weight-bearing computed tomography (WBCT). We hypothesized that 3D biometrics would have better specificity and sensitivity for PCFD diagnosis than 2D measurements.METHODS: This was a retrospective case-control study, including 28 PCFD feet and 28 controls matched for age, sex and Body Mass Index. Two-dimensional measurements included: axial and sagittal talus-first metatarsal angles (TM1A and TM1S), talonavicular coverage angle (TNCA), forefoot arch angle (FFAA), middle facet incongruence angle (MF°) and uncoverage percentage (MF%). The 3D Foot Ankle Offset (FAO) was obtained using dedicated semi-automatic software. Intra and interobserver reliabilities were assessed. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves were calculated to determine diagnostic accuracy (Area Under the Curve (AUC)), sensitivity and specificity.RESULTS: In PCFD, mean MF% and MF° were respectively 47.2% ± 15.4 and 13.3° ± 5.3 compared with 13.5% ± 8.7 and 5.6° ± 2.9 in controls (p < 0.001). The FAO was 8.1% ± 3.8 in PCFD and 1.4% ± 1.7 in controls (p < 0.001). AUCs were 0.99 (95%CI, 0.98-1) for MF%, 0.96 (95%CI, 0.9-1) for FAO, 0.90 (95%CI, 0.81-0.98) for MF°. For MF%, a threshold value equal or greater than 28.7% had a sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 92.8%. Conversely, a FAO value equal or greater than 4.6% had a specificity of 100% and a sensitivity of 89.2%. All other 2D measurements were significantly different in PCFD and controls (p < 0.001).CONCLUSIONS: MF% and FAO were both accurate measurements for PCFD. MF% demonstrated slightly better specificity. FAO better sensitivity. A combination of threshold values of 28.7% for MF% and 4.6% for FAO yielded 100% sensitivity and specificity.
U2 - 10.1016/j.fas.2021.12.012
DO - 10.1016/j.fas.2021.12.012
M3 - SCORING: Journal article
C2 - 35000873
VL - 28
SP - 912
EP - 918
JO - FOOT ANKLE SURG
JF - FOOT ANKLE SURG
SN - 1268-7731
IS - 7
ER -