Three-Dimensional Distance Mapping to Identify Safe Zones for Lateral Column Lengthening

Enhancing precision in osteochondral lesions of the talus measurements and improving agreement in surgical decision-making using weight-bearing computed tomography and distance mapping

PURPOSE

Weight-bearing computed tomography (WBCT) enables the creation of a three-dimensional (3D) model that represents the ankle morphology in a standing position. Distance mapping (DM) is a complementary feature that uses color coding to represent the relative intraarticular distance and can be used to outline intraarticular defects. Consequently, DM offers a novel approach to delineating osteochondral lesions of the talus (OLT), allowing for the quantification of its surface, volume and depth. The reliability of DM for OLT measurements has yet to be thoroughly evaluated. This study primarily aims to determine the reliability of DM in measuring the surface, depth and volume of OLT. A secondary objective is to ascertain whether measurements obtained through DM, when integrated with a predefined treatment algorithm, can facilitate consensus among surgeons regarding the optimal surgical intervention.

METHODS

This cohort comprised 36 patients with 40 OLTs evaluated using WBCT and DM. Two raters used DM to determine the lesion boundary (LB) and lesion fundus (LF) and calculate the lesion depth, surface and volume. The raters were asked to choose between bone marrow stimulation, autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis and osteochondral transposition based on the measurement. Inter-rater and intra-rater agreement was measured.

RESULTS

Interclass correlation of the lesion's depth surface produced an excellent inter-rater and intra-rater agreement of 0.90-0.94 p < 0.001. Cohen's κ agreement analysis of the preferable preoperative plan produced a κ = 0.834, p < 0.001, indicating a near-perfect agreement.

CONCLUSION

WBCT-based 3D modules and DM can be used to measure the lesion's surface, depth and volume with excellent inter-rater and inter-rater agreement; using this measurement and a predetermined treatment algorithm, a near-perfect inter-rater agreement for the preoperative planning was reached. WBCT in conjunction with AI capabilities could help determine the type of surgery needed preoperatively, evaluate the hindfoot alignment and assess if additional surgeries are needed.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Biomechanical effects of Evans versus Hintermann osteotomy for treating adult acquired flatfoot deformity: a patient-specific finite element investigation

BACKGROUND

Evans and Hintermann lateral column lengthening (LCL) procedures are both widely used to correct adult acquired flatfoot deformity (AAFD), and have both shown good clinical results. The aim of this study was to compare these two procedures in terms of corrective ability and biomechanics influence on the Chopart and subtalar joints through finite element (FE) analysis.

METHODS

Twelve patient-specific FE models were established and validated. The Hintermann osteotomy was performed between the medial and posterior facets of the subtalar joint; while, the Evans osteotomy was performed on the anterior neck of the calcaneus around 10 mm from the calcaneocuboid joint surface. In each procedure, a triangular wedge of varying size was inserted at the lateral edge. The two procedures were then compared based on the measured strains of superomedial calcaneonavicular ligaments and planter facia, the talus-first metatarsal angle, and the contact characteristics of talonavicular, calcaneocuboid and subtalar joints.

RESULTS

The Hintermann procedure achieved a greater correction of the talus-first metatarsal angle than Evans when using grafts of the same size, indicating that Hintermann had stronger corrective ability. However, its distributions of von-Mises stress in the subtalar, talonavicular and calcaneocuboid joints were less homogeneous than those of Evans. In addition, the strains of superomedial calcaneonavicular ligaments and planter facia of Hintermann were also greater than those of Evans, but both generally within the safe range (less than 6%).

CONCLUSION

This FE analysis study indicates that both Evans and Hintermann procedures have good corrective ability for AAFD. Compared to Evans, Hintermann procedure can provide a stronger corrective effect while causing greater disturbance to the biomechanics of Chopart joints, which may be an important mechanism of arthritis. Nevertheless, it yields a better protection to the subtalar joint than Evans osteotomy.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Both Evans and Hintermann LCL surgeries have a considerable impact on adjacent joints and ligament tissues. Such effects alongside the overcorrection problem should be cautiously considered when choosing the specific surgical method.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, case-control study.