Search

Background: 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., Methods: 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., Results: 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)., Conclusions: 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., Levels of Evidence: Level III., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None of the authors or the authors´ institution received funding in relation to this study. The first and corresponding author is consultant of Curvebeam AI, Geistlich, Intercus, Ossio and Implants International, proprietor of R-Innovation, and shareholder of Curvebeam AI., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The aim of this study was to compare outcome (clinical, patient-reported outcome measures, radiologic, joint motion and pedographic) of total joint replacement with Roto-Glide (RG) and arthrodesis (A) for severe osteoarthritis of the first metatarsophalangeal joint (MTP1)., Methods: All consecutive patients with arthrodesis and RG from January 23, 2011, until September 18, 2019, at the authors' institution were considered for inclusion in the study. Preoperatively and at follow-up (FU), radiographs, and/or weightbearing computed tomographic imaging were obtained. Standard dynamic pedography was performed. Visual analog scale foot and ankle (VASFA), European Foot and Ankle Society (EFAS) score, MTP1 range of motion for dorsiflexion/plantarflexion (DF/PF) were registered and compared preoperatively and at FU., Results: Seventy RG and 72 arthrodesis patients were included. Preoperative VASFA and EFAS scores did not differ between the RG and arthrodesis groups (average scores: VASFA, 50.6 and 45.6; EFAS score, 10.7 and 10.6, respectively; each P > .05). Wound healing delays without further operative measures were registered in 4 patients (6%) for RG and 5 (7%) for arthrodesis ( P = .67), and 5 revisions in 5 patients (7%) for RG and 12 in 8 (11%) for arthrodesis ( P = .05). The longest available FU was higher in RG than in arthrodesis (47 vs 37 months on average, P < .001). Pedography showed higher first metatarsal head or sesamoids and lower great toe force percentage from force of entire foot in RG than in arthrodesis ( P = .05) resulting in physiological pattern in RG only. VASFA and EFAS scores at FU was higher in RG than in arthrodesis (average scores: VASFA, 72.6 and 63.6; EFAS score, 16.1 and 14.1, respectively; each P < .05). DF/PF measurement was only possible in RG (average value: DF/PF, 36.1/14.0)., Conclusion: We found marginally lower revision rates and higher patient-reported outcome measures, joint motion (DF/PF), and more physiologic force distribution at slightly longer FU for the RG group than the arthrodesis group. Longer follow-up and broader clinical reporting are needed to identify the potential deficits of RG., Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective cohort study.

Background: The aim of the study was to assess the 5-year-follow-up (5FU) after Autologous Matrix Induced Chondrogenesis plus Peripheral Blood Concentrate (AMIC+PBC) in chondral defects at the first metatarsophalangeal joint (MTP1)., Material and Methods: In a prospective consecutive non-controlled clinical follow-up study, all patients with chondral lesion at MTP1 that were treated with AMIC+PBC from July 17, 2016 to May 31, 2017 were included. Size and location of the chondral lesions, the Visual-Analogue-Scale Foot and Ankle (VAS FA) and the EFAS Score before treatment and at 5FU were analysed and compared with previous 2-year-follow-up (2FU). Peripheral Blood Concentrate (PBC) was used to impregnate a collagen I/III matrix (Chondro-Gide, Wolhusen, Switzerland) that was fixed into the chondral lesion with fibrin glue., Results: One hundred and ninety-eight patients with 238 chondral defects were included. In 21 % of patients no deformities in the forefoot were registered. The average degree of osteoarthritis was 2.2. The chondral defect size was 1.0 cm 2 on average. The most common location was metatarsal dorsal (33 %), and in most patients one defect was registered (74 %). Corrective osteotomy of the first metatarsal was performed in 79 %. 176 (89 %)/164 (83 %) patients completed 2FU/5FU. VAS FA/EFAS Score were preoperatively 46.8/11.9 and improved to 74.1/17.1 at 2FU and 75.0/17.3 at 5FU on average. No parameter significantly differed between 2FU and 5FU., Conclusions: AMIC+PBC as treatment for chondral defects at MTP1 as part of joint preserving surgery led to improved and high validated outcome scores at 2FU and 5FU. The results between 2FU and 5FU did not differ., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest None of the authors or the authors´ institution received funding in relation to this study., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The aim of the study was to assess 5-year-follow-up (5FU) after Autologous Matrix Induced Chondrogenesis plus Peripheral Blood Concentrate (AMIC+PBC) in chondral lesions at the ankle as part of a complex surgical approach., Methods: In a prospective consecutive non-controlled clinical follow-up study, all patients with chondral lesion at the ankle treated with AMIC+PBC from July 17, 2016 to May 31, 2017 were included. Size and location of the chondral lesions, the Visual-Analogue-Scale Foot and Ankle (VAS FA) and the EFAS Score before treatment and at 5FU were analysed and compared with previous 2-year-follow-up (2FU). Peripheral Blood Concentrate (PBC) was used to impregnate a collagen I/III matrix (Chondro-Gide, Wolhusen, Switzerland) that was fixed into the chondral lesion with fibrin glue., Results: One hundred and twenty-nine patients with 136 chondral lesions were included in the study. The chondral lesions were located as follows (n (%)), medial talar shoulder only, 62 (46); lateral talar shoulder only, 42 (31); medial and lateral talar shoulder, 7 (10); tibia, 18 (13). The average for lesion size was 1.8 cm 2 , for VAS FA 45.7 and for EFAS Score 9.8. 2FU/5FU was completed in 105 (81 %)/104(81 %) patients with 112/111 previous chondral lesions. VAS FA improved to 79.8/84.2 and EFAS Score to 20.3/21.5 (2FU/5FU). No parameter significantly differed 2FU and 5FU., Conclusions: AMIC+PBC as part of a complex surgical approach led to improved and high validated outcome scores at 2FU/5FU. 2FU and 5FU did not differ., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest None of the authors or the authors´ institution received funding in relation to this study., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

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., (Copyright © 2021 European Foot and Ankle Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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., (Copyright © 2022 European Foot and Ankle Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The aim of the study was to compare Matrix-Associated Stem Cell Transplantation (MAST) with Autologous Matrix Induced Chondrogenesis plus Peripheral Blood Concentrate (AMIC+PBC) in chondral lesions at the ankle., Methods: In a matched-patient clinical follow-up study, patients with chondral lesion at the ankle that were treated with MAST from April 1, 2009 to July 15, 2016, and patients that were treated with AMIC+PBC from July 17, 2016 to May 31, 2017 were included and compared. Size and location of the chondral lesions and the Visual-Analogue-Scale Foot and Ankle (VAS FA) before treatment and at follow-up were analysed. Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrate (BMAC) was used for MAST and Peripheral Blood Concentrate (PBC) for AMIC+PBC to impregnate a collagen I/III matrix (Chondro-Gide, Wollhusen, Switzerland) that was fixed into the chondral lesion with fibrin glue., Results: One hundred and twenty-nine patients with 136 chondral lesions were included in both groups. The chondral lesions were located as follows (MAST/AMIC+PBC, n (%)), medial talar shoulder only, 59 (43)/62 (46); lateral talar shoulder only, 44 (32)/42 (31); medial and lateral talar shoulder, 7 (10)/7 (10); tibia, 19 (14)/18 (13). The lesion size was 1.6/1.8cm 2 on average and VAS FA was 46.9/45.7 (MAST/AMIC+PBC). For MAST/AMIC+PBC groups, 107 (83%)/105 (81%) with 112/110 previous chondral lesions completed the defined 2-year-follow-up after 24.4/23.8 months on average. VAS FA improved to 82.3/79.8 (MAST/AMIC+PBC). No parameter significantly differed between MAST and AMIC+PBC groups., Conclusions: MAST and AMIC+PBC as part of a complex surgical approach led to improved and high validated outcome scores in 2-year-follow-up. MAST and AMIC+PBC showed similar results., (Copyright © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

pedCAT(®) (CurveBeam, Warrington, PA) is a technology for 3-dimensional (3D) imaging with full weightbearing that has been proved to exactly visualize the 3D bone position. For the present study, a customized pedography sensor (Pliance; Novel, Munich, Germany) was inserted into the pedCAT(®). The aim of our study was to analyze the correlation of the bone position and force/pressure distribution. A prospective consecutive study of 50 patients was performed, starting July 28, 2014. All patients underwent a pedCAT(®) scan and simultaneous pedography with full weightbearing in the standing position. The following parameters were measured on the pedCAT(®) image for the right foot by 3 different investigators 3 times: lateral talo-first metatarsal angle, calcaneal pitch angle, and minimum height of the fifth metatarsal base, second to fifth metatarsal heads, and medial sesamoid. From the pedography data, the following parameters were defined using the standardized software algorithm: midfoot contact area, maximum force of midfoot, maximum force of midfoot lateral, maximum force of entire foot, and maximum pressure of first to fifth metatarsal. The values of the corresponding pedCAT(®) and pedographic parameters were correlated (Pearson). The intra- and interobserver reliability of the pedCAT(®) measurements were sufficient (analysis of variance, p > .8 for each, power >0.8). No sufficient correlation was found between the pedCAT(®) and pedographic parameters (r < 0.05 or r > -0.38).3D bone position did not correlate with the force and pressure distribution under the foot sole during simultaneous pedCAT(®) scanning and pedography. Thus, the bone positions measured with pedCAT(®) do not allow conclusions about the force and pressure distribution. However, the static pedographic parameters also do not allow conclusions about the 3D bone position.one position and force/pressure distribution are important parameters for diagnostics, planning, and follow-up examinations in foot and ankle surgery., (Copyright © 2016 American College of Foot and Ankle Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)