ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2023
Hindfoot alignment assessment by the foot-ankle offset: a diagnostic study.
Article in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- 3D foot and ankle radiographic measurement toolbox.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Standardizing 3 Dimensional Measurements in Foot and Ankle Imaging: A Contemporary Review and Methodological Proposal.Foot and ankle clinics · 2025Review
- Increased subtalar rotational motion in patients with symptomatic ankle instability under load and stress conditions.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionFoot-ankle offset (FAO) is a three-dimensional (3D) biometric measurement of hindfoot alignment (HA) measured on images from weight-bearing computed tomography (WBCT). Our aim was to investigate its distribution in a large cohort of patients, hypothesizing that threshold FAO values in valgus or varus could be identified as markers for increased risk of associated pathologies. MATERIALS AND
methodsProspective, monocentric, level II study including 125 subjects (250 feet) undergoing bilateral WBCT [58.4% female; mean age, 54 years (18-84)]. Patients were clinically assessed and pathologies were classified according to anatomic location (valgus- or varus associated). HA was measured using FAO on 3D datasets and tibio-calcaneal angles (TCA) on two-dimensional Saltzman-El-Khoury views. Threshold FAO values and area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) were calculated for predicting increased risk of medial or lateral pathologies.
resultsMean FAO was 1.65% ± 4.72 and mean TCA was 4.15° ± 7.67. Clinically, 167 feet were normal, 33 varus and 50 valgus with FAO values of 1.71% ± 3.16, - 4.96% ± 5.30 and 5.79% ± 3.77, respectively. Mean FAO was 0.99% ± 3.26 for non-pathological feet, - 2.53% ± 5.05 for lateral and 6.81% ± 2.70 for medial pathologies. Threshold FAO values of - 1.64% (51.4% sensitivity, 85.1% specificity, AUC = 0.72) and 2.71% (95% sensitivity, 82.8% specificity, AUC = 0.93) best predicted the risk of lateral and medial pathology, respectively.
conclusionPatients with FAO between - 1.64% and 2.71% had the least risk of degenerative foot and ankle pathology. This interval could be considered a target for patients undergoing realignment procedures. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: A "safe zone" for Foot Ankle Offset was described between - 1.64% and 2.71%, for which the risk of foot and ankle pathologies is lower. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II-Diagnostic study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35445859What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.