The inter- and intraobserver reliability for the radiological parameters of flatfoot, before and after surgery.

Aims: Various radiological parameters are used to evaluate a flatfoot deformity and their measurements may differ. The aims of this study were to answer the following questions: 1) Which of the 11 parameters have the best inter- and intraobserver reliability in a standardized radiological setting? 2) Are pre- and postoperative assessments equally reliable? 3) What are the identifiable sources of variation? Patients and Methods: Measurements of the 11 parameters were recorded on anteroposterior and lateral weight-bearing radiographs of 38 feet before and after surgery for flatfoot, by three observers with different experience in foot surgery (A, ten years; B, three years; C, third-year orthopaedic resident). The inter- and intraobserver reliability was calculated. Results: Preoperative interobserver reliability was high for four, moderate for five, and low for two parameters. Postoperative interobserver reliability was high for four, moderate for five, and low for two parameters. Intraobserver reliability was excellent for all parameters preoperatively as recorded by observer A (PB) and B (MP), and for eight parameters as recorded by observer C (SR). Intraobserver reliability was excellent for ten parameters postoperatively as recorded by observer A and B, and for eight parameters as recorded by observer C. Conclusion: The following parameters can be recommended. For preoperative and postoperative evaluation of flatfoot: anteroposterior, talonavicular coverage angle; lateral, talometatarsal I angle, calcaneal pitch angle, and cuneiform-medial height (high interobserver reliability); and anteroposterior, talometatarsal II angle; lateral, talocalcaneal angle,tibiocalcaneal angle (moderate interobserver reliability). For more experienced observers, we also recommend the anteroposterior talometatarsal I angle (moderate reliability). The inter- and intraobserver reliability for most parameters were similar pre- and postoperatively. The experience of the observer and the definition and ability to measure the parameters themselves were sources of variation. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:596-602.

Mid-term follow-up of patients with hindfoot arthrodesis with retrograde compression intramedullary nail in Charcot neuroarthropathy of the hindfoot.

AIMS: Hindfoot arthrodesis with retrograde intramedullary nailing has been described as a surgical strategy to reconstruct deformities of the ankle and hindfoot in patients with Charcot arthropathy. This study presents case series of Charcot arthropathy patients treated with two different retrograde intramedullary straight compression nails in order to reconstruct the hindfoot and assess the results over a mid-term follow-up. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 18 consecutive patients and 19 operated feet with Charcot arthropathy who underwent a hindfoot arthrodesis using a retrograde intramedullary compression nail. Patients were ten men and eight women with a mean age of 63.43 years (38.5 to 79.8). We report the rate of limb salvage, complications requiring additional surgery, and fusion rate in both groups. The mean duration of follow-up was 46.36 months (37 to 70). RESULTS: The limb salvage rate was 16 of 19 limbs. Three patients had to undergo below-knee amputation due to persistent infection followed by osteomyelitis resistant to parenteral antibiotic therapy and repeated debridement. Complications including infection, hardware removal, nonunion, and persistent ulcers requiring further intervention were also observed. Postoperative functional scores revealed significant improvement compared with preoperative scores on American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) - Hindfoot scale, Foot Function Index (FFI), visual analogue scale (VAS), and Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS). CONCLUSION: The use of retrograde intramedullary compression nail results in good rates of limb salvage when used for hindfoot reconstruction in patients with Charcot arthropathy. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:190-6.