Smartphone Photogrammetry as a Tool for Pes Planus Assessment: Reliability and Agreement with Radiographic...

Background/Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reliability and diagnostic accuracy of smartphone-based photogrammetry for the assessment of pes planus and to determine its agreement with standard radiographic measurements. Methods: This prospective diagnostic study included 100 skeletally mature patients (50 males, 50 females; mean age 43.4 years) who underwent standardized lateral weight-bearing foot radiographs and smartphone-based foot photography. The calcaneal pitch angle (CPA) was measured on radiographs, and a corresponding photographic arch pitch angle (P-APA) was measured from standardized smartphone photographs using digital software (Angle Meter iOS v1.9.8). Three independent observers performed each measurement twice. Inter- and intra-observer reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Agreement between methods was evaluated with Pearson correlation, Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), Bland-Altman analysis, and Deming regression. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed to determine the diagnostic accuracy of calibrated P-APA, with the radiographic threshold of 18° serving as the reference standard for pes planus classification. Results: All measurements demonstrated excellent intra- and inter-observer reliability (ICC ≥ 0.900). P-APA values were systematically higher than radiographic values (31.8° ± 4.3 vs. 21.8° ± 5.5; p < 0.001). A strong correlation was observed between the two methods (r = 0.799, p < 0.001), but concordance was poor (CCC = 0.222). Bland-Altman analysis revealed a mean bias of +10.1° with wide limits of agreement (3.8° to 16.4°). Deming regression yielded the calibration equation Radiographic CPA = (P-APA × 1.371) - 21.883. ROC analysis of calibrated values yielded an AUC of 0.885 (95% CI, 0.820-0.951), with an optimal cutoff of 22.8° (sensitivity, 100%; specificity, 61.1%), corresponding to 32.6° on the uncalibrated photographic scale. Conclusions: Conventional weight-bearing radiography remains the reference standard for diagnosis and clinical decision-making in pes planus. The smartphone-derived photographic arch pitch angle is a non-equivalent surrogate measure that shows substantial systematic bias and limited agreement with radiographic calcaneal pitch, and therefore cannot replace weight-bearing radiographs. Smartphone photogrammetry may be used only as a complementary tool for preliminary screening or telemedicine support; any positive or equivocal findings require radiographic confirmation.