title: Reliability of clinically relevant 3D foot bone angles from quantitative computed tomography.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Surgical treatment and clinical management of foot pathology requires accurate, reliable assessment of foot deformities. Foot and ankle deformities are multi-planar and therefore difficult to quantify by standard radiographs. Three-dimensional (3D) imaging modalities have been used to define bone orientations using inertial axes based on bone shape, but these inertial axes can fail to mimic established bone angles used in orthopaedics and clinical biomechanics. To provide improved clinical relevance of 3D bone angles, we developed techniques to define bone axes using landmarks on quantitative computed tomography (QCT) bone surface meshes. We aimed to assess measurement precision of landmark-based, 3D bone-to-bone orientations of hind foot and lesser tarsal bones for expert raters and a template-based automated method.
  
  
  METHODS
  Two raters completed two repetitions each for twenty feet (10 right, 10 left), placing anatomic landmarks on the surfaces of calcaneus, talus, cuboid, and navicular. Landmarks were also recorded using the automated, template-based method. For each method, 3D bone axes were computed from landmark positions, and Cardan sequences produced sagittal, frontal, and transverse plane angles of bone-to-bone orientations. Angular reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and the root mean square standard deviation (RMS-SD) for intra-rater and inter-rater precision, and rater versus automated agreement.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Intra- and inter-rater ICCs were generally high (≥ 0.80), and the ICCs for each rater compared to the automated method were similarly high. RMS-SD intra-rater precision ranged from 1.4 to 3.6° and 2.4 to 6.1°, respectively, for the two raters, which compares favorably to uni-planar radiographic precision. Greatest variability was in Navicular: Talus sagittal plane angle and Cuboid: Calcaneus frontal plane angle. Precision of the automated, atlas-based template method versus the raters was comparable to each rater's internal precision.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Intra- and inter-rater precision suggest that the landmark-based methods have adequate test-retest reliability for 3D assessment of foot deformities. Agreement of the automated, atlas-based method with the expert raters suggests that the automated method is a valid, time-saving technique for foot deformity assessment. These methods have the potential to improve diagnosis of foot and ankle pathologies by allowing multi-planar quantification of deformities.
authors.affiliation: Applied Kinesiology Laboratory, Program in Physical Therapy, Washington University School of Medicine, St, Louis, MO 63108, USA. gutekunst.david@mayo.edu.
authors.forename: David J
authors.initials: DJ
authors.lastname: Gutekunst
authors.forename: Lu
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Liu
authors.forename: Tao
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Ju
authors.forename: Fred W
authors.initials: FW
authors.lastname: Prior
authors.forename: David R
authors.initials: DR
authors.lastname: Sinacore
references.citation: J Biomech. 2009 Jun 19;42(9):1263-9
references.pmid: 19375706
references.citation: J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2003 May-Jun;11(3):201-11
references.pmid: 12828450
references.citation: J Biomech. 2007;40(12):2672-8
references.pmid: 17368465
references.citation: Foot Ankle Int. 2011 Sep;32(9):867-72
references.pmid: 22097162
references.citation: J Clin Densitom. 2005 Winter;8(4):371-8
references.pmid: 16311420
references.citation: Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv. 2008;11(Pt 1):296-304
references.pmid: 18979760
references.citation: Foot Ankle Int. 1998 Jun;19(6):394-404
references.pmid: 9677084
references.citation: Gait Posture. 2010 Jun;32(2):226-30
references.pmid: 20627728
references.citation: J Clin Densitom. 2011 Jul-Sep;14(3):313-20
references.pmid: 21723764
references.citation: J Biomech. 2002 Apr;35(4):543-8
references.pmid: 11934426
references.citation: J Biomech. 2008;41(7):1390-7
references.pmid: 18405904
references.citation: J Orthop Res. 2006 Dec;24(12):2176-86
references.pmid: 16921526
references.citation: Gait Posture. 2006 Jun;23(4):401-10
references.pmid: 15914005
references.citation: J Biomech. 2007;40(15):3412-23
references.pmid: 17631298
references.citation: IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 1999 Sep;18(9):753-63
references.pmid: 10571380
references.citation: J Foot Ankle Res. 2009 May 27;2:18
references.pmid: 19473480
references.citation: Gait Posture. 2006 Jun;23(4):411-24
references.pmid: 16157483
references.citation: J Digit Imaging. 2009 Oct;22(5):492-502
references.pmid: 18478296
references.citation: Comput Med Imaging Graph. 1999 Mar-Apr;23(2):75-83
references.pmid: 10227373
references.citation: Foot Ankle. 1980 Nov;1(3):151-8
references.pmid: 7319431
references.citation: J Digit Imaging. 2013 Jun;26(3):554-62
references.pmid: 23090209
references.citation: J Biomech. 2012 Apr 5;45(6):1103-7
references.pmid: 22284429
references.citation: Arthritis Rheum. 2002 Dec;46(12):3168-77
references.pmid: 12483720
references.citation: J Strength Cond Res. 2005 Feb;19(1):231-40
references.pmid: 15705040