Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 30, 2026
07:23
Culture of Murine Embryonic Metatarsals: A Physiological Model of Endochondral Ossification
Published on: December 3, 2016
Does it matter how we measure metatarsal length?
D Chauhan1, M A Bhutta, J L Barrie
1Ninewells Hospital, Dundee, UK.
Summary
Radiological measurement of second metatarsal length varies significantly between common methods. This variability questions their reliability for planning metatarsal osteotomies and understanding forefoot pain causes.
Area of Science:
- Orthopedics
- Radiology
- Podiatry
Background:
- Variations in metatarsal bone lengths are linked to forefoot pain.
- Osteotomies are used to correct metatarsal length discrepancies.
- A standardized radiological method for measuring metatarsal length is lacking.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare three common radiological methods for measuring second metatarsal length.
- To assess the reproducibility and agreement of these measurement techniques.
Main Methods:
- Standing dorsoplantar radiographs of 81 feet were analyzed.
- Measurements were taken using Coughlin, Maestro, and Hardy/Clapham methods.
- Bland and Altman analysis was employed for reproducibility and agreement assessment.
Main Results:
- Significant differences in measured second metatarsal lengths were observed.
- Coughlin's and Maestro's methods indicated protrusion, while Hardy/Clapham's suggested retraction.
- Coughlin's method demonstrated the highest reproducibility; Hardy/Clapham's the lowest.
- Inter-method agreement was poor, with biases ranging from 1mm to 5.5mm.
Conclusions:
- Current radiological methods for measuring metatarsal length yield highly variable results.
- The reliability of these methods in surgical planning (e.g., metatarsal osteotomies) is questionable.
- Further research is needed to establish accurate and reliable measurement techniques.
