Cargando…

Reliability of Cone Beam Weightbearing Computed Tomography Analysis of Total Ankle Arthroplasty Positioning and Comparison to Weightbearing X-Ray Measurements

BACKGROUND: The current reference standard for postoperative evaluation of total ankle arthroplasty (TAA) positioning, weightbearing radiography (WBXR), is subject to technical bias. Weightbearing cone beam computed tomography (WBCT) enables visualization of the foot’s complex 3-dimensional (3D) str...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Efrima, Ben, Barbero, Agustin, Ovadia, Joshua E., Indino, Cristian, Maccario, Camilla, Usuelli, Federico Giuseppe
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10350699/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37231710
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/10711007231173672
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: The current reference standard for postoperative evaluation of total ankle arthroplasty (TAA) positioning, weightbearing radiography (WBXR), is subject to technical bias. Weightbearing cone beam computed tomography (WBCT) enables visualization of the foot’s complex 3-dimensional (3D) structure under standing load. To date, no WBCT-based system for TAA positioning has been validated. The purpose of this study was to (1) assess TAA positioning using WBCT 3D models and (2) evaluate the agreement levels between 2 raters and thus evaluate the intermethod reliability with respect to WBXR. METHODS: Fifty-five consecutive patients were retrospectively reviewed. Two raters independently created a 3D WBCT model using dedicated software and recorded the following measurements: α angle, tibiotalar surface angle (TSA), hindfoot angle (HFA), tibiotalar ratio (TTR), β angle, γ angle, and Φ angle. Measurements were repeated 2 months apart in similar, independent fashion and compared to WBXR. Interobserver, intraobserver, and intermethod agreements were calculated. RESULTS: All 7 measurements showed good to excellent intraobserver and interobserver reliability (ICC 0.85-0.95). The intermethod (WBCT vs WBXR) agreement showed good agreement for the γ angle (ICC 0.79); moderate agreement levels for the α angle, TSA angle, β angle, and TTR (ICC 0.68, 0.69, 0.70, and 0.69, respectively); poor agreement for the HFA (ICC 0.25); and negative agreement for the φ angle (ICC −0.2). CONCLUSION: Position analysis of TAA using WBCT demonstrated good to excellent interobserver and intraobserver agreement and can be reliably used. Additionally, a negative to moderate agreement between standard WBCT and standard WBXR was found. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective study.