Is Lower-limb Alignment Associated with Hindfoot Deformity in the Coronal Plane?

TY - JOUR

T1 - Is Lower-limb Alignment Associated with Hindfoot Deformity in the Coronal Plane?

T2 - A Weightbearing CT Analysis

AU - Burssens, Arne B M

AU - Buedts, Kris

AU - Barg, Alexej

AU - Vluggen, Elizabeth

AU - Demey, Patrick

AU - Saltzman, Charles L

AU - Victor, Jan M K

PY - 2020/1

Y1 - 2020/1

N2 - BACKGROUND: The goals of lower limb reconstruction are to restore alignment, to improve function, and to reduce pain. However, it remains unclear whether alignment of the lower limb and hindfoot are associated because an accurate assessment of hindfoot deformities has been limited by superposition on plain radiography. Consequently, surgeons often overlook hindfoot deformity when planning orthopaedic procedures of the lower limb. Therefore, we used weight-bearing CT to quantify hindfoot deformity related to lower limb alignment in the coronal plane.QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Is lower-limb alignment different in varus than in valgus hindfoot deformities for patients with and without tibiotalar joint osteoarthritis? (2) Does a hindfoot deformity correlate with lower-limb alignment in patients with and without tibiotalar joint osteoarthritis? (3) Is joint line orientation different in varus than in valgus hindfoot deformities for patients with tibiotalar joint osteoarthritis? (4) Does a hindfoot deformity correlate with joint line orientation in patients with tibiotalar joint osteoarthritis?METHODS: Between January 2015 and December 2017, one foot and ankle surgeon obtained weightbearing CT scans as second-line imaging for 184 patients with ankle and hindfoot disorders. In 69% (127 of 184 patients) of this cohort, a combined weightbearing CT and full-leg radiograph was performed when symptomatic hindfoot deformities were present. Of those, 85% (109 of 127 patients) with a median (range) age of 53 years (23 to 75) were confirmed eligible based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria of this retrospective comparative study. The Takakura classification was used to divide the cohort into patients with (n = 74) and without (n = 35) osteoarthritis of the tibiotalar joint. Lower-limb measurements, obtained from the full-leg radiographs, consisted of the mechanical tibiofemoral angle, mechanical tibia angle, and proximal tibial joint line angle. Weightbearing CT images were used to determine the hindfoot's alignment (mechanical hindfoot angle), the tibiotalar joint alignment (distal tibial joint line angle and talar tilt angle) and the subtalar joint alignment (subtalar vertical angle). These values were statistically assessed with an ANOVA and a pairwise comparison was subsequently performed with Tukey's adjustment. A linear regression analysis was performed using the Pearson correlation coefficient (r). A reliability analysis was performed using the intraclass correlation coefficient.RESULTS: Lower limb alignment differed among patients with hindfoot deformity and among patients with or without tibiotalar joint osteoarthritis. In patients with tibiotalar joint osteoarthritis, we found knee valgus in presence of hindfoot varus deformity and knee varus in presence of hindfoot valgus deformity (mechanical tibiofemoral angle 0.3 ± 2.6° versus -1.8 ± 2.1°; p < 0.001; mechanical tibia angle -1.4 ± 2.2° versus -4.3 ± 1.9°; p < 0.001). Patients without tibiotalar joint osteoarthritis demonstrated knee varus in the presence of hindfoot varus deformity compared with knee valgus in presence of hindfoot valgus deformity (mechanical tibiofemoral angle -2.2 ± 2.2° versus 0.9 ± 2.4°; p < 0.001; mechanical tibia angle -1.8 ± 2.1° versus -4.3 ± 1.9°; p < 0.001). Patients with more valgus deformity in the hindfoot tended to have more tibiofemoral varus (r = -0.38) and tibial varus (r = -0.53), when tibiotalar joint osteoarthritis was present (p < 0.001). Conversely, patients with more valgus deformity in the hindfoot tended to have more tibiofemoral valgus (r = 0.4) and tibial valgus (r = 0.46), when tibiotalar joint osteoarthritis was absent (p < 0.001). The proximal joint line of the tibia had greater varus orientation in patients with a hindfoot valgus deformity compared with greater valgus orientation in patients with a hindfoot varus deformity (proximal tibial joint line angle 88.5 ± 2.0° versus 90.6 ± 2.2°; p < 0.05). Patients with more valgus deformity in the hindfoot tended to have more varus angulation of the proximal tibial joint line angle (r = 0.31; p < 0.05).CONCLUSIONS: In patients with osteoarthritis of the tibiotalar joint, varus angulation of the knee was associated with hindfoot valgus deformity and valgus angulation of the knee was associated with hindfoot varus deformity. Patients without tibiotalar joint osteoarthritis exhibited the same deviation at the level of the knee and hindfoot. These distinct radiographic findings were most pronounced in the alignment of the tibia relative to the hindfoot deformity. This suggests a detailed examination of hindfoot alignment before knee deformity correction at the level of the proximal tibia, to avoid postoperative increase of pre-existing hindfoot deformity. Other differences detected between the radiographic parameters were less pronounced and varied within the subgroups. Future research could identify prospectively which of these parameters contain clinical relevance by progressing osteoarthritis or deformity and how they can be altered by corrective treatment.LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, prognostic study.

AB - BACKGROUND: The goals of lower limb reconstruction are to restore alignment, to improve function, and to reduce pain. However, it remains unclear whether alignment of the lower limb and hindfoot are associated because an accurate assessment of hindfoot deformities has been limited by superposition on plain radiography. Consequently, surgeons often overlook hindfoot deformity when planning orthopaedic procedures of the lower limb. Therefore, we used weight-bearing CT to quantify hindfoot deformity related to lower limb alignment in the coronal plane.QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Is lower-limb alignment different in varus than in valgus hindfoot deformities for patients with and without tibiotalar joint osteoarthritis? (2) Does a hindfoot deformity correlate with lower-limb alignment in patients with and without tibiotalar joint osteoarthritis? (3) Is joint line orientation different in varus than in valgus hindfoot deformities for patients with tibiotalar joint osteoarthritis? (4) Does a hindfoot deformity correlate with joint line orientation in patients with tibiotalar joint osteoarthritis?METHODS: Between January 2015 and December 2017, one foot and ankle surgeon obtained weightbearing CT scans as second-line imaging for 184 patients with ankle and hindfoot disorders. In 69% (127 of 184 patients) of this cohort, a combined weightbearing CT and full-leg radiograph was performed when symptomatic hindfoot deformities were present. Of those, 85% (109 of 127 patients) with a median (range) age of 53 years (23 to 75) were confirmed eligible based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria of this retrospective comparative study. The Takakura classification was used to divide the cohort into patients with (n = 74) and without (n = 35) osteoarthritis of the tibiotalar joint. Lower-limb measurements, obtained from the full-leg radiographs, consisted of the mechanical tibiofemoral angle, mechanical tibia angle, and proximal tibial joint line angle. Weightbearing CT images were used to determine the hindfoot's alignment (mechanical hindfoot angle), the tibiotalar joint alignment (distal tibial joint line angle and talar tilt angle) and the subtalar joint alignment (subtalar vertical angle). These values were statistically assessed with an ANOVA and a pairwise comparison was subsequently performed with Tukey's adjustment. A linear regression analysis was performed using the Pearson correlation coefficient (r). A reliability analysis was performed using the intraclass correlation coefficient.RESULTS: Lower limb alignment differed among patients with hindfoot deformity and among patients with or without tibiotalar joint osteoarthritis. In patients with tibiotalar joint osteoarthritis, we found knee valgus in presence of hindfoot varus deformity and knee varus in presence of hindfoot valgus deformity (mechanical tibiofemoral angle 0.3 ± 2.6° versus -1.8 ± 2.1°; p < 0.001; mechanical tibia angle -1.4 ± 2.2° versus -4.3 ± 1.9°; p < 0.001). Patients without tibiotalar joint osteoarthritis demonstrated knee varus in the presence of hindfoot varus deformity compared with knee valgus in presence of hindfoot valgus deformity (mechanical tibiofemoral angle -2.2 ± 2.2° versus 0.9 ± 2.4°; p < 0.001; mechanical tibia angle -1.8 ± 2.1° versus -4.3 ± 1.9°; p < 0.001). Patients with more valgus deformity in the hindfoot tended to have more tibiofemoral varus (r = -0.38) and tibial varus (r = -0.53), when tibiotalar joint osteoarthritis was present (p < 0.001). Conversely, patients with more valgus deformity in the hindfoot tended to have more tibiofemoral valgus (r = 0.4) and tibial valgus (r = 0.46), when tibiotalar joint osteoarthritis was absent (p < 0.001). The proximal joint line of the tibia had greater varus orientation in patients with a hindfoot valgus deformity compared with greater valgus orientation in patients with a hindfoot varus deformity (proximal tibial joint line angle 88.5 ± 2.0° versus 90.6 ± 2.2°; p < 0.05). Patients with more valgus deformity in the hindfoot tended to have more varus angulation of the proximal tibial joint line angle (r = 0.31; p < 0.05).CONCLUSIONS: In patients with osteoarthritis of the tibiotalar joint, varus angulation of the knee was associated with hindfoot valgus deformity and valgus angulation of the knee was associated with hindfoot varus deformity. Patients without tibiotalar joint osteoarthritis exhibited the same deviation at the level of the knee and hindfoot. These distinct radiographic findings were most pronounced in the alignment of the tibia relative to the hindfoot deformity. This suggests a detailed examination of hindfoot alignment before knee deformity correction at the level of the proximal tibia, to avoid postoperative increase of pre-existing hindfoot deformity. Other differences detected between the radiographic parameters were less pronounced and varied within the subgroups. Future research could identify prospectively which of these parameters contain clinical relevance by progressing osteoarthritis or deformity and how they can be altered by corrective treatment.LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, prognostic study.

KW - Adult

KW - Aged

KW - Bone Malalignment/diagnostic imaging

KW - Female

KW - Foot Deformities/diagnostic imaging

KW - Humans

KW - Lower Extremity/diagnostic imaging

KW - Male

KW - Middle Aged

KW - Reproducibility of Results

KW - Retrospective Studies

KW - Tomography, X-Ray Computed

KW - Weight-Bearing

KW - Young Adult

U2 - 10.1097/CORR.0000000000001067

DO - 10.1097/CORR.0000000000001067

M3 - SCORING: Journal article

C2 - 31809289

VL - 478

SP - 154

EP - 168

JO - CLIN ORTHOP RELAT R

JF - CLIN ORTHOP RELAT R

SN - 0009-921X

IS - 1

ER -