Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 7, 2025
Diagnosis of Musculus Gastrocnemius Tightness - Key Factors for the Clinical Examination
Published on: July 7, 2016
Diagnostic accuracy of measurements in progressive collapsing foot deformity using weight bearing computed
François Lintz1, Alessio Bernasconi2, Shuyuan Li3
1Ramsay Santé Clinique de l'Union, Centre de Chirurgie de la Cheville et du Pied, Saint Jean, France.
Background:
We aimed to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of known two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) measurements for Progressive Collapsing Foot Deformity (PCFD) in weight-bearing computed tomography (WBCT). We hypothesized that 3D biometrics would have better specificity and sensitivity for PCFD diagnosis than 2D measurements.
Methods:
This was a retrospective case-control study, including 28 PCFD feet and 28 controls matched for age, sex and Body Mass Index. Two-dimensional measurements included: axial and sagittal talus-first metatarsal angles (TM1A and TM1S), talonavicular coverage angle (TNCA), forefoot arch angle (FFAA), middle facet incongruence angle (MF°) and uncoverage percentage (MF%). The 3D Foot Ankle Offset (FAO) was obtained using dedicated semi-automatic software. Intra and interobserver reliabilities were assessed. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves were calculated to determine diagnostic accuracy (Area Under the Curve (AUC)), sensitivity and specificity.
Results:
In PCFD, mean MF% and MF° were respectively 47.2% ± 15.4 and 13.3° ± 5.3 compared with 13.5% ± 8.7 and 5.6° ± 2.9 in controls (p < 0.001). The FAO was 8.1% ± 3.8 in PCFD and 1.4% ± 1.7 in controls (p < 0.001). AUCs were 0.99 (95%CI, 0.98-1) for MF%, 0.96 (95%CI, 0.9-1) for FAO, 0.90 (95%CI, 0.81-0.98) for MF°. For MF%, a threshold value equal or greater than 28.7% had a sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 92.8%. Conversely, a FAO value equal or greater than 4.6% had a specificity of 100% and a sensitivity of 89.2%. All other 2D measurements were significantly different in PCFD and controls (p < 0.001).
Conclusions:
MF% and FAO were both accurate measurements for PCFD. MF% demonstrated slightly better specificity. FAO better sensitivity. A combination of threshold values of 28.7% for MF% and 4.6% for FAO yielded 100% sensitivity and specificity.
