Automatic software-based 3D-angular measurement for Weight-Bearing CT (WBCT) provides different angles than measurement by hand.

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.