Abstract
BackgroundThe 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. MethodsFive-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. ResultsThe 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). ConclusionsAM 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. Levels of evidenceLevel III
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
