Use of the iPhone for radiographic evaluation of hallux valgus

Skeletal Radiology

Volumn 42, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 269-273

  Ege, Tolga ^a   Kose, Ozkan ^b,c   Koca, Kenan ^a   Demiralp, Bahtiyar ^a   Basbozkurt, Mustafa ^a  

^a GULHANE SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (Turkey)

^b Antalya Education and Research Hospital   (Turkey)

^c F Blok Daire 22 ^*  (Turkey)

Author keywords

Hallux Angles; Hallux valgus; Interobserver variability; Intraobserver variability; iPhone; Radiography; Reproducibility of results

Indexed keywords

ACCELEROMETER; ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPUTER; COMPUTER ANALYSIS; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING EQUIPMENT; DISTAL METATARSAL ARTICULAR ANGLE; FEMALE; FOOT RADIOGRAPHY; HALLUX VALGUS; HALLUX VALGUS ANGLE; HUMAN; INTERMETATARSAL ANGLE; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MALE; MEASUREMENT; MOBILE PHONE; MUSCULOSKELETAL SYSTEM PARAMETERS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RELIABILITY;

ALGORITHMS; CELLULAR PHONE; COMPUTERS, HANDHELD; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; HALLUX VALGUS; HUMANS; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SOFTWARE;

EID: 84874113625     PISSN: 03642348     EISSN: 14322161     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00256-012-1455-9     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Perera AM, Mason L, Stephens MM. The pathogenesis of hallux valgus. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(17):1650-61.
2. Coughlin MJ. Hallux valgus. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1996;78(6):932-66.
3. Coughlin MJ, Jones CP. Hallux valgus: demographics, etiology, and radiographic assessment. Foot Ankle Int. 2007;28(7):759-77.
4. Piqué-Vidal C, Maled-García I, Arabi-Moreno J, Vila J. Radiographic angles in hallux valgus: differences between measurements made manually and with a computerized program. Foot Ankle Int. 2006;27(3):175-80.
5. Srivastava S, Chockalingam N, El Fakhri T. Radiographic angles in hallux valgus: comparison between manual and computer-assisted measurements. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2010;49(6):523-8.
6. Coughlin MJ, Saltzman CL, Nunley 2nd JA. Angular measurements in the evaluation of hallux valgus deformities: a report of the ad hoc committee of the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society on angular measurements. Foot Ankle Int. 2002;23(1):68-74.
7. WG Healthcare. Hallux Angles homepage. http://www.ockendon.net/ halluxangles-homepage.htm. Accessed 27 February 2012.
8. Bussewitz BW, Levar T, Hyer CF. Modern techniques in hallux abducto valgus surgery. Clin Podiatr Med Surg. 2011;28(2):287-303.
9. Maffulli N, Longo UG, Marinozzi A, Denaro V. Hallux valgus: effectiveness and safety of minimally invasive surgery. A systematic review. Br Med Bull. 2011;97:149-67.
10. Schneider W, Knahr K. Surgery for hallux valgus. The expectations of patients and surgeons. Int Orthop. 2001;25(6):382-5.
11. Coughlin MJ, Freund E. Roger A. Mann Award. The reliability of angular measurements in hallux valgus deformities. Foot Ankle Int. 2001;22(5):369-79.
12. Resch S, Ryd L, Stenström A, Johnsson K, Reynisson K. Measuring hallux valgus: a comparison of conventional radiography and clinical parameters with regard to measurement accuracy. Foot Ankle Int. 1995;16(5):267-70.
13. Van Vo H, Safiedine AM, Short T, Merrill T. A comparison of 4 common methods of hand-measured techniques with a computerized technique to measure the first intermetatarsal angle. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2004;43(6):395-9.
14. Shima H, Okuda R, Yasuda T, Jotoku T, Kitano N, Kinoshita M. Radiographic measurements in patients with hallux valgus before and after proximal crescentic osteotomy. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(6):1369-76.
15. Shaw M, Adam CJ, Izatt MT, Licina P, Askin GN. Use of the iPhone for Cobb angle measurement in scoliosis. Eur Spine J. 2012. In press.