Search

The purpose of this study was to compare automatic software-based angular measurement (AM) with validated measurement by hand (MBH) regarding angle values and time spent for Weight-Bearing CT (WBCT) generated datasets. Five-hundred WBCT scans from different pathologies were included in the study. 1st - 2nd intermetatarsal angle, talo-1st metatarsal angle dorsoplantar and lateral, hindfoot angle, calcaneal pitch angle were measured and compared between MBH and AM. The pathologies were ankle osteoarthritis/instability, n = 147 (29%); Haglund deformity/Achillodynia, n = 41 (8%); forefoot deformity, n = 108 (22%); Hallux rigidus, n = 37 (7%); flatfoot, n = 35 (7%); cavus foot, n = 10 (2%); osteoarthritis except ankle, n = 82 (16%). The angles did not differ between MBH and AM (each p > 0.36). The time spent for MBH / AM was 44.5 / 1 s on average per angle (p <.001). AM provided angles which were not different from validated MBH and can be considered as a validated angle measurement method. The time spent was 97% lower for AM than for MBH. Level III [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The purpose of this study was to compare semi-automatic software-based angular measurement (SAM) with previously validated measurement by hand (MBH) regarding angle values and time spent for the investigator for Weight-Bearing CT (WBCT).Methods: In this retrospective comparative study, five-hundred bilateral WBCT scans (PedCAT, Curvebeam, Warrington, PA, USA) were included in the study. Five angles (1st - 2nd intermetatarsal angle (IM), talo-metatarsal 1-angle (TMT) dorsoplantar and lateral projection, hindfoot angle, calcaneal pitch angle) were measured with MBH and SAM (Bonelogic Ortho Foot and Ankle, Version 1.0.0-R, Disior Ltd, Helsinki, Finland) on the right/left foot/ankle. The angles and time spent of MBH and SAM were compared (t-test, homoscesdatic).Results: The angles differed between MBH and SAM (mean values MBH/SAM; IM, 9.1/13.0; TMT dorsoplantar, -3.4/8.2; TMT lateral. -6.4/-1.1; hindfoot angle, 4.6/21.6; calcaneal pitch angle, 20.5/20.1; each p < 0.001 except the calcaneal pitch angle, p = 0.35). The time spent for MBH / SAM was 44.5 ± 12 s / 12 ± 0 s on average per angle (p < 0.001).Conclusions: SAM provided different angles as MBH (except calcaneal pitch angle) and can currently not be considered as validated angle measurement method (except calcaneal pitch angle). The investigator time spent is 73% lower for SAM (12 s per angle) than for MBH (44.5 s per angle). SAM might be an important step forward for 3D-angle measurement of WBCT when valid angles are provided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Purpose of this study was to compare automatic software-based angular measurement (AM, Autometrics, Curvebeam, Warrington, PA, USA) with previously validated measurement by hand (MBH) regarding angle values and time spent for the investigator for Weight-Bearing CT (WBCT).Methods: Five-hundred bilateral WBCT scans (PedCAT, Curvebeam, Warrington, PA, USA) were included in the study. Five angles (1st - 2nd intermetatarsal angle, talo-metatarsal 1-angle (TMT) dorsoplantar and lateral projection, hindfoot angle, calcaneal pitch angle) were measured with MBH and AM on the foot/ankle (side with pathology). Angles and time spent of MBH and AM were compared (t-test, homoscedatic).Results: The specific pathologies were ankle osteoarthritis/instability, n = 147 (29%); Haglund deformity/Achillodynia, n = 41 (8%); forefoot deformity, n = 108 (22%); Hallux rigidus, n = 37 (7%); flatfoot, n = 35 (7%); cavus foot, n = 10 (2%); osteoarthritis except ankle, n = 82 (16%). The angles differed between MBH and AM (each p < 0.001) except the calcaneal pitch angle (p = 0.05). The time spent for MBH / AM was 44.5 ± 12 s / 1 ± 0 s on average per angle (p < 0.0011).Conclusions: AM provided different angles as MBH and can currently not be considered as validated angle measurement method. The investigator time spent is 97% lower for AM (1 s per angle) than for MBH (44.5 s per angle). Cases with correct angles in combination with almost no time spent showed the real potential of AM. The AM system will have to become reliable (especially in diminishing positive and negative angle values as defined) and valid which has to be proven by planned studies in the future.Level Of Evidence: Level III. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]