Next Article in Journal
Immediate Implantation with Autologous Mineralized Dentin Graft versus Deproteinized Bovine Bone as Space-Filling Substitute in Maxillary Anterior Zone: Retrospective Radiological and Clinical Study
Previous Article in Journal
Safety and Efficacy of Minimally Invasive Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation for Apical Pelvic Organ Prolapse in Older Women
Previous Article in Special Issue
Mid-Term Clinical and Radiographic Results of Complex Hip Revision Arthroplasty Based on 3D Life-Sized Model: A Prospective Case Series
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 13
Issue 18
10.3390/jcm13185519
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Trends in the Use of Weightbearing Computed Tomography

by
Alessio Bernasconi
1,*,
Yanis Dechir
2,
Antonio Izzo
1,
Martina D’Agostino
1,
Paolo Magliulo
1,
Francesco Smeraglia
1,
Cesar de Cesar Netto
3,
International Weightbearing CT Society
† and
François Lintz
4
1
Trauma and Orthopaedics Unit, Department of Public Health, University of Naples Federico II, 80131 Naples, Italy
2
Department of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire (CHU) de Toulouse, 31300 Toulouse, France
3
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA
4
Department of Foot and Ankle Surgery, Ramsay Healthcare, Clinique de l’Union, 31240 Saint Jean, France
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
International Weightbearing CT Society: Martinus Richter, François Lintz, Cesar de Cesar Netto, Scott J. Ellis, Alexandre Leme Godoy-Santos, Alessio Bernasconi, Arne Burssens, 9000 Ghent, Belgium; [email protected].
J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13(18), 5519; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13185519
Submission received: 20 August 2024 / Revised: 10 September 2024 / Accepted: 12 September 2024 / Published: 18 September 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Trauma and Orthopedic Surgery: Recent Developments and Future Challenges)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background: This review aimed to critically appraise the most recent orthopedic literature around cone beam weightbearing computed tomography (WBCT), summarizing what evidence has been provided so far and identifying the main research trends in the area. Methods: This scoping review was performed on studies published between January 2013 and December 2023 on the Pubmed database. All studies (both clinical and nonclinical) in which WBCT had been used were critically analyzed to extract the aim (or aims) of the study, and the main findings related to the role of this imaging modality in the diagnostic pathway. Results: Out of 1759 studies, 129 were selected. One hundred five manuscripts (81%) dealt with elective orthopedic conditions. The majority of the analyses (88 studies; 84%) were performed on foot and ankle conditions, while 13 (12%) studies looked at knee pathologies. There was a progressive increase in the number of studies published over the years. Progressive Collapsing Foot Deformity (22 studies; 25%) and Hallux Valgus (19 studies; 21%) were frequent subjects. Twenty-four (19%) manuscripts dealt with traumatic conditions. A particular interest in syndesmotic injuries was documented (12 studies; 60%). Conclusions: In this review, we documented an increasing interest in clinical applications of weightbearing CT in the orthopedic field between 2013 and 2023. The majority of the analyses focused on conditions related to the foot and the ankle; however, we found several works investigating the value of WBCT on other joints (in particular, the knee).

1. Introduction

During the last decade, an increasing number of studies have investigated the role of cone beam weightbearing computed tomography in the management of orthopedic conditions [1,2]. The advantages of this recent technology essentially related to the ability to obtain a tri-planar and three-dimensional image acquisition of musculoskeletal structures during physiological stances and with a reduced amount of radiation (cone beam technology instead of traditional fan beam tomography [3,4,5,6]) have been widely discussed in the literature and have led researchers from all over the world to investigate how this would translate in terms of clinical benefit for the patients [1,7,8,9]. The first machines (after those introduced in the maxillofacial area [10,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26]) were developed to scan the foot and ankle, as regions with high anatomical complexity (28 bones and related joints) where the biases associated with bi-dimensional imaging (especially overlapping contour lines due to superimposition of bony structures and risk of inaccurate measurements related to rotation bias of the radiographic source) have been particularly felt by the orthopedic community [1]. The technological advancements have enabled industries to provide more recent machines to scan the whole lower limb including hips and knees and parts of the upper limb as well (through rotation of the gantry). After the first review on the topic published by Barg et al. in 2017 [27], some other reviews have documented the general interest in this field, highlighting the value of this imaging technology in different orthopedic conditions, its limitations and potential future perspectives [28,29,30,31,32].
With this background, we performed a scoping review of the literature aiming to identify trends in research on the role of weightbearing computed tomography in the management of orthopedic conditions. We hypothesized that (1) an increased use of WBCT for complex three-dimensional deformities could be observed and that (2) new applications to enhance the status of knowledge of musculoskeletal diseases could be identified.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Protocol and Registration

This scoping review was designed according to the PRISMA-ScR checklist (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) and followed the 6-stage methodological frameworks of Arksey and O’Malley, as found in the previous orthopedic literature [33]. The study protocol was registered on the Open Science Framework database (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/76F59).

2.2. Eligibility Criteria

The inclusion criteria for this review were as follows: studies reporting data on validated or potential applications of cone beam weightbearing CT machines, both as clinical or in vitro (cadaveric or biomechanical) studies, published from 2013 to 2023; prospective and retrospective cohort studies and technical notes; English-language articles; full-text availability, either online or after direct contact with the authors. Case reports, letters to the editor, instructional courses, expert opinions and studies on animals were excluded. References from previous narrative or systematic reviews were analyzed and extracted if indicated.

2.3. Information Sources and Search

A systematic search was conducted on PubMed from 2013 to 31 December 2023, with the following Boolean operator: ((weightbearing) AND (ct)). Two reviewers (A.B. and A.I.) independently screened the results of the research; then, the full texts of eligible studies were analyzed. Disputes were resolved by the senior author (F.L.).

2.4. Data Charting and Items

Data were charted independently by 2 investigators (A.B. and A.I.), and results were compared between the investigators to verify that no data had been missed. Data extracted were the year of publication, the type of study, the level of evidence provided, the sample size of the study group, the body segment investigated (foot, ankle, knee, hip or other joints) and the medical condition evaluated using WBCT.

2.5. Critical Appraisal of Included Studies

Quality assessment of both comparative and non-comparative studies was performed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) criteria. This checklist covered the following eight categories to assess non-randomized controlled trials (NRCTs): clearly stated objectives, the inclusion of consecutive subjects, prospective collection of data, appropriate endpoints, unbiased assessment of the study endpoints, a follow-up period in line with study objectives, loss to follow-up less than 5% and a prospective sample size calculation [34]. Each of these questions can be answered with “not indicated” (0 points), “indicated but insufficient” (1 point), or “indicated and sufficient” (2 points), the global ideal score being 16 for non-comparative studies. Two investigators performed the MINORS assessment twice (AI and AB) at an interval of 10 days; then, the scores were discussed whenever a difference was present until a consensus was reached. Categorization of the MINORS scores was performed based on the previous literature [35] as follows: “Very low” (0–4 points); “Low” (5–8 points); “Good” (9–12); and “Excellent” (10,14–16).

2.6. Synthesis of Results

Summarized data were presented as total numbers, percentages, means and ranges. All analyses were performed using the Stata statistical software package (StataCorp, Stata Statistical Software: Release 14. College Station, TX, USA: StataCorp LLC) A critical analysis was provided for each outcome, but a formal statistical approach was performed only if data in primary studies were sufficient. The trend in terms of type of study, level of evidence, body segment and medical condition was analyzed in the timeframe between 2013 and 2023.

3. Results

Out of 1759 studies, 129 followed the inclusion criteria and were selected (Figure 1) [36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143,144,145,146,147,148,149,150,151,152,153,154,155,156,157,158,159,160,161,162,163,164]. Nine studies dealt with acute conditions while 120 with chronic ones. The median year of publication was 2021 (IQR, 2019–2022; range 2013–2023). The median sample size was 25 cases (IQR, 15–48; range 3–1175) in the whole cohort, 26 cases (IQR, 16–55) in the Elective group and 20 (IQR, 13–26.5) in the Trauma group (p = 0.04). Retrospective comparative analyses (Level III) represented the most common study design during the whole timeframe analyzed (Figure 2). There was a progressive increase in the number of Level III, Level IV and Level V studies published over the years (Figure 3). The overall quality of studies was good with a mean MINORS score at 12 (range, 7 to 16) for studies on elective conditions and at 11 (range, 8 to 16) for studies on traumatic conditions. The devices used to perform WBCT scans have been reported in Table 1.

3.1. Elective Conditions

Out of 129, 105 (81%) manuscripts dealt with elective orthopedic conditions. Sixty-six papers (62%) were comparative by design, but only five (4.7%) were prospective (Table 2). The majority of the analyses (88 studies, 84%) were performed on foot and ankle conditions, while 13 studies (12%) looked at knee pathologies (Figure 4). A variety of diseases were investigated (as reported in Table 3) with particular interest in Progressive Collapsing Foot Deformity (22 studies; 25%) and Hallux Valgus (19 studies; 21%).

3.2. Traumatic Conditions

Out of 131, 24 (18%) manuscripts dealt with traumatic conditions. Seventeen papers (70%) were comparative by design, but only three (12.5%) were prospective (Table 2). The majority of analyses (20 studies; 83%) were performed on foot and ankle conditions, with two studies focusing on knee issues (8%) and one on lower limbs (4%) (Figure 4). The main ailments investigated are reported in Table 3, demonstrating particular interest in syndesmotic injuries (12 studies; 60%).

4. Discussion

In this review, including studies published between 2013 and 2023, we documented an increasing interest from the scientific community towards the clinical applications of weightbearing CT in the orthopedic field. Even if the majority of studies have been focusing on conditions related to the foot and the ankle, we also found a number of works investigating the value of this imaging modality for other joints (in particular, the knee), which probably depends on the technological advancements in the area with the availability of new machines. Of note, in the decade analyzed, we documented a ten-times increase in the number of studies between the first and the last two years (2 studies retrieved in 2013 and 2014 vs. 22 studies in 2022 and 26 studies in 2023) with a variety of conditions being investigated and with results suggesting that three-dimensional imaging during stance might enable clinicians to assess with greater accuracy musculoskeletal structures with a reduced amount of radiations due to the cone beam modality.
Considering that weightbearing imaging is often not requested in the trauma setting, it is not surprising that 81% of studies dealt with elective conditions. However, at least two considerations must be made around this point. First, it is now widely accepted that the diagnostic pathway for subtle ligamentous injuries of the lower limb must include imaging during stance in which the natural ‘stress’ applied on ligaments is reproduced through the application of gravity. This explains why almost one-fifth of studies in the foot and ankle field (among these, 14% and 5% regarded syndesmotic injuries and Lisfranc instability, respectively) focus on ligamentous lesions, which often risk going unseen on standard imaging [151]. Even if already before the advent of WBCT, there was agreement that syndesmotic lesions needed loading in order to be unmasked [165,166,167,168,169], it is also known that some subtle lesions at this level are considered easy to miss. This is where the the value of WBCT should be proven with more accurate measurements and greater diagnostic accuracy. In detail, regarding the syndesmosis, Borjali et al. have recently evaluated 48 patients with unstable syndesmotic lesions and compared them with 96 controls using deep learning models on WBCT images and demonstrated that a very high accuracy with a reduced time could be achieved [146]. A previous landmark meta-analysis published in 2022 by Raheman et al. on 11 studies using WBCT technology (including 559 ankles in 408 uninjured patients and 151 patients with syndesmotic instability) has confirmed that the so-called ‘syndesmotic area’ is amongst the most reliable parameters to diagnose syndesmotic instability, since it significantly increases under loading in injured ankles [170]. Similarly, bilateral standing radiographs have always been deemed necessary in order not to miss ligamentous Lisfranc injuries not associated with bony lesions [171,172,173,174], although, in this context, limits related to the bi-dimensionality of standard imaging are well known. On a different note, the limited number of studies dealing with urgent conditions possibly reflects the fact that the possibility to obtain tri-planar tomographic images under physiological load has prevailed in the mind of most users, while the use of cone beam non-weightbearing scans (potentially useful in all traumatic injuries of the lower limb, of the wrist or of the hand [52]) has not spread in clinical protocols yet. In a 2021 study by Jacques et al., cone beam CT was assessed in the context of an emergency radiology department, proving that the radiation dose was significantly reduced, and the turnover significantly accelerated as compared to the same months of the previous year (when only a standard multi-detector CT was available) [52].
In terms of level of evidence provided, there is no doubt that most studies were retrospective, with 80% among the elective studies and 64% among the trauma studies. As depicted in Figure 3, the number of Level III (retrospective comparative) and Level IV (retrospective non-comparative) studies has been steadily growing over the years. Conversely, we have noticed a low number of prospective comparative analyses (Level II) produced over time, while no randomized controlled trial has been published to date at all. In our opinion, this depends on the fact that most authors have aimed at investigating the role of WBCT as innovative imaging technology in the diagnosis and follow-up of orthopedic conditions, which is a necessary step to validate its use and allow its diffusion in clinical daily practice. Now that multiple analyses are being provided in different conditions, physicians have the basis to propose protocols for high-quality studies in which WBCT is a crucial tool of investigation and not the target of the study itself.
Looking at conditions analyzed in studies included in this review, it is clear that three-dimensional deformities like Progressive Collapsing Foot Deformity (PCFD) [115,126,128,129,137] and Hallux Valgus [62,70,71,72,75,76,78,79,163] have represented the most frequent pathologies evaluated using WBCT. These conditions involve abnormalities both in bone and soft tissue, making necessary a standing imaging in order to plan correctly any kind of surgical procedure. What is more, in this setting, rotation or torsion of a single segment may hugely vary between one patient and another, and only an appropriate assessment of the deformity may allow to plan surgical gestures in order to achieve the best outcome. The possibility to obtain such imaging with a reduced amount of radiation and a tomographic acquisition with subsequent three-dimensional reconstruction has been attractive for clinicians since the introduction of WBCT machines in the market. For what concerns Hallux Valgus, standing multiplanar imaging has certainly helped to better understand the degrees of rotation or torsion often associated with the well-known valgus deformities and theoretically associated with a certain risk of recurrence of the deformity. For what concerns studies related to the knee, it is not surprising that in all conditions investigated (i.e., osteoarthritis, patellar instability, knee instability and total knee replacement), the measurements taken in non-weightbearing conditions differed from those recorded using WBCT. It is worth mentioning that surgical planning before total knee replacement (or also total hip replacement) still relies on weightbearing radiographs (which do not allow us to consider properly any axial malalignment) or on non-weightbearing CT (which means unreal joint spaces due to the lack of gravity) [175,176,177,178,179,180], which might reduce the accuracy of planning itself and reduce the success rate and patient satisfaction.
It may be interesting to highlight that although, during the last years, WBCT machines able to scan the whole lower limb have been made available, we were unable to find studies dedicated to the hip, and we could select only some of them dealing with lower limb alignment. Most of them focused primarily on the relationship between hindfoot and lower limb alignment [108,111,112,181]. Before the introduction of WBCT (and also currently in centers where radiographs are the standard standing imaging), authors around the world have often focused on the complex relationship between the knee, the ankle and the heel, trying to establish which changes may occur in a joint when surgery is performed at a different level [33,182,183,184,185,186,187,188,189,190,191,192,193,194,195]. Amongst studies adopting WBCT, in 2023, Dufrenot et al. found an association between external tibial rotation and varus hindfoot in healthy people and hypothesized a sort of compensatory mechanism between knee and hindfoot alignments. However, they also highlighted that, in some other patients, this correlation was not present, therefore raising concerns about a potential failure of such mechanism in some cases [111]. In a similar study led by Burssens et al. in 2020, the authors detected differences between patients with and without tibiotalar osteoarthritis [181]. In detail, in patients with ankle osteoarthritis, a varus knee was associated with a valgus hindfoot, and a valgus knee was associated with a varus hindfoot. Conversely, patients without tibiotalar joint osteoarthritis presented with the same deviation at the level of the knee and hindfoot [181]. While active research is going on to explore the correlation between femoral torsion, knee and foot alignment, so far, results have not been unanimous, and a solid conclusion about hindfoot and suprasegmentary alignment cannot be drawn yet.
Based on what we found in the current literature, we think that some limitations of WBCT devices must be considered here. As an example, the initial cost of these machines has often been discussed as a potential limiting factor to the spreading of the technology in clinical centers. Not many cost-effectiveness studies have been published so far; however, in a population-based study published in 2021, two periods of time were compared in the emergency setting: a 7-month period during which only a standard multi-detector CT was available, and, one year later, an equivalent 7-month period during which a CBCT was also used [52]. The authors found a significantly reduced radiation dose and an accelerated turnover (23.6% faster) with CBCT in place. Based on this, and taking into account the need to reduce waiting lists in public hospitals, it is likely that initial economical effort to buy the machine would soon be compensated by the gain in terms of diagnostic workflow, as already discussed above. On a different note, whether the management of WBCT devices should be given to radiologists (as it could be given considering the nature of the device) or to orthopedic surgeons (who, according to the literature discussed above, are the main users of the device given the clinical advantages in diagnosis and, even more, surgical three-dimensional planning) has also been a matter of debate. While in an ideal setting, both specialties should collaborate and move in the same direction, the fact that this does not always happen and the lack of agreement felt by clinicians in daily practice are advocated as a further limitation to the acquisition and use of WBCT devices.
On a different note, some considerations should be made around the quality of images obtained using WBCT scans. The field of view of these machines generally includes billions of voxels, with a voxel size ranging between 0.25 and 0.4 mm, which allows to assess musculoskeletal structures satisfactorily. However, there are clinical scenarios, such as for the arthrodeses of small joints, which might pose a challenge for the clinician due to the size of spot welds between juxtaposed bony surfaces and the presence of metalwork in the area. It is the authors’ experience that, over the years, a great effort has been made by companies to further improve the quality of images, increasing the resolution of images and making available metal artifact reduction software in order to enable a correct evaluation of small anatomical areas as well.
Finally, with regard to the upper limb, our investigation found a single study by Buckwalter et al. in which the ulnar variance during handstands was assessed in ten gymnasts [161]. While we are aware that a greater number of studies have been published dealing with upper limb conditions and CBCT (such as scaphoid and wrist fractures [196,197,198,199,200,201,202,203]), we acknowledge that our research must have missed them due to the keyword ‘weightbearing’ used in the research process which has certainly limited the output. Even in this setting, multiple authors have underlined that a wider use of cone beam CT might allow for more time to reach a final diagnosis, avoiding double imaging (i.e., standard radiographs followed by CT in uncertain cases) and detecting occult bony lesions [202], such as scaphoid fractures [204,205,206,207,208,209,210]. Interestingly, concerning the spine, while we are aware of ongoing research activity to describe the value of weightbearing MRI [211,212,213,214,215,216], we found a single study by Feldle et al. in 2023 in which a gantry-free cone beam CT was used to scan the lumbar spine from eight cadaveric specimens to establish the most dose-effective combination of scan parameters [144]. Their study, in which an optimized protocol was established, will likely be used as a starting point for future analysis in this area. While industries are advancing fast to produce machines to scan the whole body in standing position, as of March 2024, we are already aware of cone beam tomographic devices presented on the market waiting for approval for clinical use worldwide.

5. Conclusions

In this review, we documented an increasing interest in clinical applications of weightbearing CT in the orthopedic field between 2013 and 2023. The majority of analyses has focused on three-dimensional complex conditions related to the foot and the ankle; however, we found several works investigating the value of WBCT for other joints (in particular the knee), also demonstrating a benefit from this technology for the assessment of suprasegmentary issues. Further work is warranted to confirm or disprove our findings.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.B., Y.D, A.I., M.D., P.M., F.S., F.L. and C.d.C.N.; methodology, A.B., Y.D., A.I., M.D., P.M., F.S., F.L. and C.d.C.N.; validation, A.B., A.I., M.D., F.L. and C.d.C.N.; formal analysis, A.B. and A.I.; data curation, A.B. and A.I.; writing—original draft preparation, A.B., Y.D., A.I., M.D., P.M., F.S., F.L. and C.d.C.N.; writing—review and editing, A.B., A.I., M.D., F.L. and C.d.C.N.; supervision, A.B., F.L. and International Weightbearing CT Society. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this study as a systematic review of published studies.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data can be made available upon request to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

A.B. reports a relationship with CurveBeam that includes stocks, being a member of the youth and media committee of the EFAS, a relationship with International WBCT Society that includes board membership. F.L. reports a relationship with CurveBeam that includes equity or stocks, a relationship with International WBCT Society that includes board membership, personal fees and other from Newclip Technics, personal fees and other from Disior, being a board member of the AFCP; member of the media committee of EFAS. C.d.C.N. reports a relationship with CurveBeam that includes equity or stocks, a relationship with International WBCT Society that includes board membership, personal fees from Nextremity, grants, personal fees, non-financial support and other from Paragon 28, personal fees from Zimmer-Biomet, personal fees from Ossio, outside the submitted work; and AOFAS Committee Member, FAI Media Board Member, AAOS Committee Member. Y.D., A.I., M.D., P.M. and F.S. report no conflict of interest. The International Weightbearing CT society promotes dialogue and collaboration on weightbearing CT research initiatives and is working to create standardized protocols for weightbearing CT measurements and analysis.

References

  1. Tuominen, E.K.J.; Kankare, J.; Koskinen, S.K.; Mattila, K.T. Weight-Bearing CT Imaging of the Lower Extremity. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 2013, 200, 146–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Doan, M.K.; Long, J.R.; Verhey, E.; Wyse, A.; Patel, K.; Flug, J.A. Cone-Beam CT of the Extremities in Clinical Practice. Radiographics 2024, 44, e230143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Jin, J.Y.; Ren, L.; Liu, Q.; Kim, J.; Wen, N.; Guan, H.; Movsas, B.; Chetty, I.J. Combining Scatter Reduction and Correction to Improve Image Quality in Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT). Med. Phys. 2010, 37, 5634–5644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Men, K.; Dai, J.; Chen, X.; Li, M.; Zhang, K.; Huang, P. Dual-Energy Imaging Method to Improve the Image Quality and the Accuracy of Dose Calculation for Cone-Beam Computed Tomography. Phys. Medica 2017, 36, 110–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Kong, V.C.; Marshall, A.; Chan, H.B. Cone Beam Computed Tomography: The Challenges and Strategies in Its Application for Dose Accumulation. J. Med. Imaging Radiat. Sci. 2016, 47, 92–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Lechuga, L.; Weidlich, G.A. Cone Beam CT vs. Fan Beam CT: A Comparison of Image Quality and Dose Delivered Between Two Differing CT Imaging Modalities. Cureus 2016, 8, e778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Willauer, P.; Sangeorzan, B.J.; Whittaker, E.C.; Shofer, J.B.; Ledoux, W.R. The Sensitivity of Standard Radiographic Foot Measures to Misalignment. Foot Ankle Int. 2014, 35, 1334–1340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Barg, A.; Amendola, R.L.; Henninger, H.B.; Kapron, A.L.; Saltzman, C.L.; Anderson, A.E. Influence of Ankle Position and Radiographic Projection Angle on Measurement of Supramalleolar Alignment on the Anteroposterior and Hindfoot Alignment Views. Foot Ankle Int. 2015, 36, 1352–1361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Lenz, A.L.; Krähenbühl, N.; Howell, K.; Lisonbee, R.; Hintermann, B.; Saltzman, C.L.; Barg, A. Influence of the Ankle Position and X-Ray Beam Angulation on the Projection of the Posterior Facet of the Subtalar Joint. Skelet. Radiol. 2019, 48, 1581–1589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Mozzo, P.; Procacci, C.; Tacconi, A.; Martini, P.T.; Andreis, I.A. A New Volumetric CT Machine for Dental Imaging Based on the Cone-Beam Technique: Preliminary Results. Eur. Radiol. 1998, 8, 1558–1564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Al-Okshi, A.; Lindh, C.; Salé, H.; Gunnarsson, M.; Rohlin, M. Effective Dose of Cone Beam CT (CBCT) of the Facial Skeleton: A Systematic Review. Br. J. Radiol. 2015, 88, 20140658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ludlow, J.B.; Ivanovic, M. Comparative Dosimetry of Dental CBCT Devices and 64-Slice CT for Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. Endodontol. 2008, 106, 106–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Ludlow, J.B.; Timothy, R.; Walker, C.; Hunter, R.; Benavides, E.; Samuelson, D.B.; Scheske, M.J. Ffective Dose of Dental CBCT—A Meta Analysis of Published Data and Additional Data for Nine CBCT Units. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol. 2015, 44, 20140197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Morant, J.J.; Salvadó, M.; Herńandez-Giŕon, I.; Casanovas, R.; Ortega, R.; Calzado, A. Dosimetry of a Cone Beam CT Device for Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology Using Monte Carlo Techniques and ICRP Adult Reference Computational Phantoms. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol. 2013, 42, 92555893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Orhan, K.; Pauwels, R.; Chen, Y.; Song, D.; Jacobs, R. Estimation of the Radiation Dose for Dental Spectral Cone-Beam CT. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol. 2021, 50, 20200372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Houfrar, J.; Ludwig, B.; Bister, D.; Nienkemper, M.; Abkai, C.; Venugopal, A. The Effects of Additional Filtration on Image Quality and Radiation Dose in Cone Beam CT: An in Vivo Preliminary Investigation. Biomed. Res. Int. 2022, 2022, 7031269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Roberts, J.A.; Drage, N.A.; Davies, J.; Thomas, D.W. Effective Dose from Cone Beam CT Examinations in Dentistry. Br. J. Radiol. 2009, 82, 35–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Mah, E.; Ritenour, E.R.; Yao, H. A Review of Dental Cone-Beam CT Dose Conversion Coefficients. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2021, 50, 20200225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Intarasuksanti, C.; Prapayasatok, S.; Kampan, N.; Sirabanchongkran, S.; Mahakkanukrauh, P.; Sastraruji, T.; Khongkhunthian, P.; Kuharattanachai, K.; Tripuwabhrut, K. Effects of the Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Protocol on the Accuracy and Image Quality of Root Surface Area Measurements: An in Vitro Study. Imaging Sci. Dent. 2023, 53, 325–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Muthu, M.S.; Kailasam, V.; Rao, U.; Krithika, C.; Kirthiga, M.; Jagadeesan, A.; Warrier, A. Three-Dimensional Evaluation of Interproximal Contacts of Permanent Dentition: A Cone Beam Computed Tomography Study. Eur. Arch. Paediatr. Dent. 2024, 25, 317–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Jacobs, R.; Salmon, B.; Codari, M.; Hassan, B.; Bornstein, M.M. Cone Beam Computed Tomography in Implant Dentistry: Recommendations for Clinical Use. BMC Oral Health 2018, 18, 88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Kaasalainen, T.; Ekholm, M.; Siiskonen, T.; Kortesniemi, M. Dental Cone Beam CT: An Updated Review. Phys. Medica 2021, 88, 193–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Horner, K.; Jacobs, R.; Schulze, R. Dental Cbct Equipment and Performance Issues. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 2013, 153, 212–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Xu, J.; Reh, D.D.; Carey, J.P.; Mahesh, M.; Siewerdsen, J.H. Technical Assessment of a Cone-Beam CT Scanner for Otolaryngology Imaging: Image Quality, Dose, and Technique Protocols. Med. Phys. 2012, 39, 4932–4942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. White, S.C. Cone-Beam Imaging in Dentistry. Health Phys. 2008, 95, 628–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Kiljunen, T.; Kaasalainen, T.; Suomalainen, A.; Kortesniemi, M. Dental Cone Beam CT: A Review. Phys. Med. 2015, 31, 844–860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Barg, A.; Bailey, T.; Richter, M.; de Cesar Netto, C.; Lintz, F.; Burssens, A.; Phisitkul, P.; Hanrahan, C.J.; Saltzman, C.L. Weightbearing Computed Tomography of the Foot and Ankle: Emerging Technology Topical Review. Foot Ankle Int. 2018, 39, 376–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Richter, M.; Zech, S.; Naef, I.; Duerr, F.; Schilke, R. Automatic Software-Based 3D-Angular Measurement for Weight-Bearing CT (WBCT) Is Valid. Foot Ankle Surg. 2024, 30, 417–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Leardini, A.; Durante, S.; Belvedere, C.; Caravaggi, P.; Carrara, C.; Berti, L.; Lullini, G.; Giacomozzi, C.; Durastanti, G.; Ortolani, M.; et al. Weight-Bearing CT Technology in Musculoskeletal Pathologies of the Lower Limbs: Techniques, Initial Applications, and Preliminary Combinations with Gait-Analysis Measurements at the Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli. Semin. Musculoskelet. Radiol. 2019, 23, 643–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Kim, J.; Ellis, S.; Carrino, J.A. Weight-Bearing Computed Tomography of the Foot and Ankle-What to Measure? Foot Ankle Clin. 2023, 28, 619–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Demehri, S.; Baffour, F.I.; Klein, J.G.; Ghotbi, E.; Ibad, H.A.; Moradi, K.; Taguchi, K.; Fritz, J.; Carrino, J.A.; Guermazi, A.; et al. Musculoskeletal CT Imaging: State-of-the-Art Advancements and Future Directions. Radiology 2023, 308, e230344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Brinch, S.; Wellenberg, R.H.H.; Boesen, M.P.; Maas, M.; Johannsen, F.E.; Nybing, J.U.; Turmezei, T.; Streekstra, G.J.; Hansen, P. Weight-Bearing Cone-Beam CT: The Need for Standardised Acquisition Protocols and Measurements to Fulfill High Expectations-a Review of the Literature. Skelet. Radiol. 2023, 52, 1073–1088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Labban, W.; Stadnyk, M.; Sommerfeldt, M.; Nathanail, S.; Dennett, L.; Westover, L.; Manaseer, T.; Beaupre, L. Kinetic Measurement System Use in Individuals Following Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Scoping Review of Methodological Approaches. J. Exp. Orthop. 2021, 8, 81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Slim, K.; Nini, E.; Forestier, D.; Kwiatkowski, F.; Panis, Y.; Chipponi, J. Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (Minors): Development and Validation of a New Instrument. ANZ J. Surg. 2003, 73, 712–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Ekhtiari, S.; Horner, N.S.; Bedi, A.; Ayeni, O.R.; Khan, M. The Learning Curve for the Latarjet Procedure: A Systematic Review. Orthop. J. Sports Med. 2018, 6, 2325967118786930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Lawlor, M.C.; Kluczynski, M.A.; Marzo, J.M. Weight-Bearing Cone-Beam CT Scan Assessment of Stability of Supination External Rotation Ankle Fractures in a Cadaver Model. Foot Ankle Int. 2018, 39, 850–857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Marzo, J.M.; Kluczynski, M.A.; Notino, A.; Bisson, L.J. Measurement of Tibial Tuberosity-Trochlear Groove Offset Distance by Weightbearing Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Scan. Orthop. J. Sports Med. 2017, 5, 2325967117734158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Lintz, F.; Bernasconi, A.; Baschet, L.; Fernando, C.; Mehdi, N.; de Cesar Netto, C. Relationship Between Chronic Lateral Ankle Instability and Hindfoot Varus Using Weight-Bearing Cone Beam Computed Tomography. Foot Ankle Int. 2019, 40, 1175–1181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Thompson, M.J.; Consul, D.; Umbel, B.D.; Berlet, G.C. Accuracy of Weightbearing CT Scans for Patient-Specific Instrumentation in Total Ankle Arthroplasty. Foot Ankle Orthop. 2021, 6, 24730114211061493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. VandeLune, C.; Barbachan Mansur, N.S.; Iehl, C.; Tazegul, T.; Ahrenholz, S.J.; Mendes de Carvalho, K.A.; de Cesar Netto, C. Deformity Correction in Ankle Osteoarthritis Using a Lateral Trans-Fibular Total Ankle Replacement: A Weight-Bearing CT Assessment. Iowa Orthop. J. 2022, 42, 36–46. [Google Scholar]
  41. Tazegul, T.E.; Anderson, D.D.; Barbachan Mansur, N.S.; Kajimura Chinelati, R.M.; Iehl, C.; VandeLune, C.; Ahrenholz, S.; Lalevee, M.; de Cesar Netto, C. An Objective Computational Method to Quantify Ankle Osteoarthritis From Low-Dose Weightbearing Computed Tomography. Foot Ankle Orthop. 2022, 7, 24730114221116805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Efrima, B.; Barbero, A.; Ovadia, J.E.; Indino, C.; Maccario, C.; Usuelli, F.G. Reliability of Cone Beam Weightbearing Computed Tomography Analysis of Total Ankle Arthroplasty Positioning and Comparison to Weightbearing X-Ray Measurements. Foot Ankle Int. 2023, 44, 637–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Turmezei, T.D.; Malhotra, K.; MacKay, J.W.; Gee, A.H.; Treece, G.M.; Poole, K.E.S.; Welck, M.J. 3-D Joint Space Mapping at the Ankle from Weight-Bearing CT: Reproducibility, Repeatability, and Challenges for Standardisation. Eur. Radiol. 2023, 33, 8333–8342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Faict, S.; Burssens, A.; Van Oevelen, A.; Maeckelbergh, L.; Mertens, P.; Buedts, K. Correction of Ankle Varus Deformity Using Patient-Specific Dome-Shaped Osteotomy Guides Designed on Weight-Bearing CT: A Pilot Study. Arch. Orthop. Trauma Surg. 2023, 143, 791–799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Kvarda, P.; Siegler, L.; Burssens, A.; Susdorf, R.; Ruiz, R.; Hintermann, B. Effect of Total Ankle Replacement on the 3-Dimensional Subtalar Joint Alignment in Varus Ankle Osteoarthritis. Foot Ankle Surg. 2023, 29, 424–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Kim, J.B.; Yi, Y.; Kim, J.Y.; Cho, J.H.; Kwon, M.S.; Choi, S.H.; Lee, W.C. Weight-Bearing Computed Tomography Findings in Varus Ankle Osteoarthritis: Abnormal Internal Rotation of the Talus in the Axial Plane. Skelet. Radiol. 2017, 46, 1071–1080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Lintz, F.; Jepsen, M.; De Cesar Netto, C.; Bernasconi, A.; Ruiz, M.; Siegler, S. Distance Mapping of the Foot and Ankle Joints Using Weightbearing CT: The Cavovarus Configuration. Foot Ankle Surg. 2021, 27, 412–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Sangoi, D.; Ranjit, S.; Bernasconi, A.; Cullen, N.; Patel, S.; Welck, M.; Malhotra, K. 2D Manual vs 3D Automated Assessment of Alignment in Normal and Charcot-Marie-Tooth Cavovarus Feet Using Weightbearing CT. Foot Ankle Int. 2022, 43, 973–982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Bernasconi, A.; Cooper, L.; Lyle, S.; Patel, S.; Cullen, N.; Singh, D.; Welck, M. Intraobserver and Interobserver Reliability of Cone Beam Weightbearing Semi-Automatic Three-Dimensional Measurements in Symptomatic Pes Cavovarus. Foot Ankle Surg. 2020, 26, 564–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Bernasconi, A.; Cooper, L.; Lyle, S.; Patel, S.; Cullen, N.; Singh, D.; Welck, M. Pes Cavovarus in Charcot-Marie-Tooth Compared to the Idiopathic Cavovarus Foot: A Preliminary Weightbearing CT Analysis. Foot Ankle Surg. 2021, 27, 186–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Ranjit, S.; Sangoi, D.; Cullen, N.; Patel, S.; Welck, M.; Malhotra, K. Assessing the Coronal Plane Deformity in Charcot Marie Tooth Cavovarus Feet Using Automated 3D Measurements. Foot Ankle Surg. 2023, 29, 511–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Jacques, T.; Morel, V.; Dartus, J.; Badr, S.; Demondion, X.; Cotten, A. Impact of Introducing Extremity Cone-Beam CT in an Emergency Radiology Department: A Population-Based Study. Orthop. Traumatol. Surg. Res. 2021, 107, 102834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Haldar, A.; Bernasconi, A.; Junaid, S.E.; Lee, K.H.B.; Welck, M.; Saifuddin, A. 3D Imaging for Hindfoot Alignment Assessment: A Comparative Study between Non-Weight-Bearing MRI and Weight-Bearing CT. Skelet. Radiol. 2021, 50, 179–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Richter, M.; Schilke, R.; Duerr, F.; Zech, S.; Andreas Meissner, S.; Naef, I. Automatic Software-Based 3D-Angular Measurement for Weight-Bearing CT (WBCT) Provides Different Angles than Measurement by Hand. Foot Ankle Surg. 2022, 28, 863–871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Kvarda, P.; Heisler, L.; Krähenbühl, N.; Steiner, C.S.; Ruiz, R.; Susdorf, R.; Sripanich, Y.; Barg, A.; Hintermann, B. 3D Assessment in Posttraumatic Ankle Osteoarthritis. Foot Ankle Int. 2021, 42, 200–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Rowe, N.; Robertson, C.E.; Singh, S.; Campbell, J.T.; Jeng, C.L. Weightbearing CT Analysis of the Transverse Tarsal Joint During Eversion and Inversion. Foot Ankle Int. 2022, 43, 123–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Schmidt, E.; Silva, T.; Baumfeld, D.; Dibbern, K.N.; Lee, H.Y.; Femino, J.; Barbachan Mansur, N.S.; de Cesar Netto, C. The Rotational Positioning of the Bones in the Medial Column of the Foot: A Weightbearing CT Analysis. Iowa Orthop. J. 2021, 41, 103–109. [Google Scholar]
  58. Baboeram, N.S.V.L.; Sanders, F.R.K.; Wellenberg, R.H.H.; Dobbe, J.G.G.; Streekstra, G.J.; Maas, M.; Schepers, T. Primary Arthrodesis versus Open Reduction and Internal Fixation Following Intra-Articular Calcaneal Fractures: A Weight-Bearing CT Analysis. Arch. Orthop. Trauma Surg. 2024, 144, 755–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Day, M.A.; Ho, M.; Dibbern, K.; Rao, K.; An, Q.; Anderson, D.D.; Marsh, J.L. Correlation of 3D Joint Space Width From Weightbearing CT With Outcomes After Intra-Articular Calcaneal Fracture. Foot Ankle Int. 2020, 41, 1106–1116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Lee, H.Y.; Mansur, N.S.; Lalevee, M.; Maly, C.; Iehl, C.J.; Hembree, W.C.; Godoy-Santos, A.; de Cesar Netto, C. Does Metatarsus Primus Elevatus Really Exist in Hallux Rigidus? A Weightbearing CT Case-Control Study. Arch. Orthop. Trauma Surg. 2023, 143, 755–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Zhong, Z.; Zhang, P.; Duan, H.; Yang, H.; Li, Q.; He, F. A Comparison Between X-Ray Imaging and an Innovative Computer-Aided Design Method Based on Weightbearing CT Scan Images for Assessing Hallux Valgus. J. Foot Ankle Surg. 2021, 60, 6–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. de Carvalho, K.A.M.; Walt, J.S.; Ehret, A.; Tazegul, T.E.; Dibbern, K.; Mansur, N.S.B.; Lalevée, M.; de Cesar Netto, C. Comparison between Weightbearing-CT Semiautomatic and Manual Measurements in Hallux Valgus. Foot Ankle Surg. 2022, 28, 518–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Scheele, C.B.; Christel, S.T.; Fröhlich, I.; Mehlhorn, A.; Walther, M.; Hörterer, H.; Harrasser, N.; Kinast, C. A Cone Beam CT Based 3D-Assessment of Bony Forefoot Geometry after Modified Lapidus Arthrodesis. Foot Ankle Surg. 2020, 26, 883–889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Najefi, A.A.; Alsafi, M.K.; Malhotra, K.; Patel, S.; Cullen, N.; Welck, M. Repeatability of Weightbearing Computed Tomography Measurement of First Metatarsal Alignment and Rotation. Foot Ankle Int. 2022, 43, 260–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Mens, M.A.; Bouman, C.M.B.; Dobbe, J.G.G.; Bus, S.A.; Nieuwdorp, M.; Maas, M.; Wellenberg, R.H.H.; Streekstra, G.J. Metatarsophalangeal and Interphalangeal Joint Angle Measurements on Weight-Bearing CT Images. Foot Ankle Surg. 2023, 29, 538–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Randich, J.R.; John, K.J.; Gomez, K.; Bush, W. Frontal Plane Rotation of the First Ray in Hallux Valgus Using Standing Computerized Tomography (CT). J. Foot Ankle Surg. 2021, 60, 489–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Siebert, M.J.; Steadman, J.N.; Saltzman, C.L. Sesamoid View Weightbearing Radiography vs Weightbearing Computed Tomography in the Measurement of Metatarsal Pronation Angle. Foot Ankle Int. 2023, 44, 291–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Day, J.; de Cesar Netto, C.; Burssens, A.; Bernasconi, A.; Fernando, C.; Lintz, F. A Case-Control Study of 3D vs 2D Weightbearing CT Measurements of the M1-M2 Intermetatarsal Angle in Hallux Valgus. Foot Ankle Int. 2022, 43, 1049–1052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Collan, L.; Kankare, J.A.; Mattila, K. The Biomechanics of the First Metatarsal Bone in Hallux Valgus: A Preliminary Study Utilizing a Weight Bearing Extremity CT. Foot Ankle Surg. 2013, 19, 155–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Kimura, T.; Kubota, M.; Taguchi, T.; Suzuki, N.; Hattori, A.; Marumo, K. Evaluation of First-Ray Mobility in Patients with Hallux Valgus Using Weight-Bearing CT and a 3-D Analysis System a Comparison with Normal Feet. J. Bone Jt. Surg. 2017, 99, 247–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Kawalec, J.S.; Chambers, S.P.; Ali, R.; Osher, L.S. Multiple Factors Contributing to the Metatarsal Head Eversion in Hallux Valgus Deformity. A Prospective Study Using Weight-Bearing CT. Foot 2023, 57, 101965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Kawalec, J.S.; Dort, P.; Leo, T.; Osher, L.S.; Petrozzi, R.A. The Distal Metatarsal Articular Angle in Hallux Valgus Deformities. Comparisons of Radiographic and Weightbearing CT Scan Measurements with Variations in Hindfoot Position. Foot 2023, 56, 102030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Clarke, A.J.; Conti, S.F.; Conti, M.; Fadle, A.A.; Ellis, S.J.; Miller, M.C. The Association of Crista Volume With Sesamoid Position as Measured From 3D Reconstructions of Weightbearing CT Scans. Foot Ankle Int. 2022, 43, 658–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Patel, T.J.; Conti, M.S.; Caolo, K.C.; Miller, M.C.; Conti, S.F.; Ellis, S.J. Pronation on Weightbearing Radiographs Does Not Correlate with Pronation from Weightbearing CT Scans. Foot Ankle Surg. 2022, 28, 763–769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Day, J.; de Cesar Netto, C.; Richter, M.; Mansur, N.S.; Fernando, C.; Deland, J.T.; Ellis, S.J.; Lintz, F. Evaluation of a Weightbearing CT Artificial Intelligence-Based Automatic Measurement for the M1-M2 Intermetatarsal Angle in Hallux Valgus. Foot Ankle Int. 2021, 42, 1502–1509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Mahmoud, K.; Metikala, S.; Mehta, S.D.; Fryhofer, G.W.; Farber, D.C.; Prat, D. The Role of Weightbearing Computed Tomography Scan in Hallux Valgus. Foot Ankle Int. 2021, 42, 287–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Conti, M.S.; Patel, T.J.; Caolo, K.C.; Amadio, J.M.; Miller, M.C.; Costigliola, S.V.; Ellis, S.J.; Conti, S.F. Correlation of Different Methods of Measuring Pronation of the First Metatarsal on Weightbearing CT Scans. Foot Ankle Int. 2021, 42, 1049–1059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Lalevée, M.; Barbachan Mansur, N.S.; Lee, H.Y.; Maly, C.J.; Iehl, C.J.; Nery, C.; Lintz, F.; de Cesar Netto, C. Distal Metatarsal Articular Angle in Hallux Valgus Deformity. Fact or Fiction? A 3-Dimensional Weightbearing CT Assessment. Foot Ankle Int. 2022, 43, 495–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Kimura, T.; Kubota, M.; Suzuki, N.; Hattori, A.; Marumo, K. Comparison of Intercuneiform 1-2 Joint Mobility Between Hallux Valgus and Normal Feet Using Weightbearing Computed Tomography and 3-Dimensional Analysis. Foot Ankle Int. 2018, 39, 355–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Brandenburg, L.S.; Siegel, M.; Neubauer, J.; Merz, J.; Bode, G.; Kühle, J. Measuring Standing Hindfoot Alignment: Reliability of Different Approaches in Conventional x-Ray and Cone-Beam CT. Arch. Orthop. Trauma Surg. 2022, 142, 3035–3043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Burssens, A.; Peeters, J.; Buedts, K.; Victor, J.; Vandeputte, G. Measuring Hindfoot Alignment in Weight Bearing CT: A Novel Clinical Relevant Measurement Method. Foot Ankle Surg. 2016, 22, 233–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Colin, F.; Horn Lang, T.; Zwicky, L.; Hintermann, B.; Knupp, M. Subtalar Joint Configuration on Weightbearing CT Scan. Foot Ankle Int. 2014, 35, 1057–1062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Kvarda, P.; Krähenbühl, N.; Susdorf, R.; Burssens, A.; Ruiz, R.; Barg, A.; Hintermann, B. High Reliability for Semiautomated 3D Measurements Based on Weightbearing CT Scans. Foot Ankle Int. 2022, 43, 91–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Burssens, A.; Van Herzele, E.; Leenders, T.; Clockaerts, S.; Buedts, K.; Vandeputte, G.; Victor, J. Weightbearing CT in Normal Hindfoot Alignment—Presence of a Constitutional Valgus? Foot Ankle Surg. 2018, 24, 213–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Hirschmann, A.; Pfirrmann, C.W.A.; Klammer, G.; Espinosa, N.; Buck, F.M. Upright Cone CT of the Hindfoot: Comparison of the Non-Weight-Bearing with the Upright Weight-Bearing Position. Eur. Radiol. 2014, 24, 553–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Zaidi, R.; Sangoi, D.; Cullen, N.; Patel, S.; Welck, M.; Malhotra, K. Semi-Automated 3-Dimensional Analysis of the Normal Foot and Ankle Using Weight Bearing CT—A Report of Normal Values and Bony Relationships. Foot Ankle Surg. 2023, 29, 111–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Rojas, E.O.; Barbachan Mansur, N.S.; Dibbern, K.; Lalevee, M.; Auch, E.; Schmidt, E.; Vivtcharenko, V.; Li, S.; Phisitjkul, P.; Femino, J.; et al. Weightbearing Computed Tomography for Assessment of Foot and Ankle Deformities: The Iowa Experience. Iowa Orthop. J. 2021, 41, 111–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Krähenbühl, N.; Tschuck, M.; Bolliger, L.; Hintermann, B.; Knupp, M. Orientation of the Subtalar Joint. Foot Ankle Int. 2016, 37, 109–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Krähenbühl, N.; Bailey, T.L.; Weinberg, M.W.; Davidson, N.P.; Hintermann, B.; Presson, A.P.; Allen, C.M.; Henninger, H.B.; Saltzman, C.L.; Barg, A. Impact of Torque on Assessment of Syndesmotic Injuries Using Weightbearing Computed Tomography Scans. Foot Ankle Int. 2019, 40, 710–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Burssens, A.; Krähenbühl, N.; Lenz, A.L.; Howell, K.; Zhang, C.; Sripanich, Y.; Saltzman, C.L.; Barg, A. Interaction of Loading and Ligament Injuries in Subtalar Joint Instability Quantified by 3D Weightbearing Computed Tomography. J. Orthop. Res. 2022, 40, 933–944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Hirschmann, A.; Buck, F.M.; Fucentese, S.F.; Pfirrmann, C.W.A. Upright CT of the Knee: The Effect of Weight-Bearing on Joint Alignment. Eur. Radiol. 2015, 25, 3398–3404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Marzo, J.M.; Kluczynski, M.A.; Clyde, C.; Anders, M.J.; Mutty, C.E.; Ritter, C.A. Weight Bearing Cone Beam CT Scan versus Gravity Stress Radiography for Analysis of Supination External Rotation Injuries of the Ankle. Quant. Imaging Med. Surg. 2017, 7, 678–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Hirschmann, A.; Buck, F.M.; Herschel, R.; Pfirrmann, C.W.A.; Fucentese, S.F. Upright Weight-Bearing CT of the Knee during Flexion: Changes of the Patellofemoral and Tibiofemoral Articulations between 0° and 120°. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2017, 25, 853–862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Hodel, S.; Hasler, J.; Fürnstahl, P.; Fucentese, S.F.; Vlachopoulos, L. Elongation Patterns of Posterolateral Corner Reconstruction Techniques: Results Using 3-Dimensional Weightbearing Computed Tomography Simulation. Orthop. J. Sports Med. 2022, 10, 23259671221090219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Turmezei, T.D.; Low, S.B.; Rupret, S.; Treece, G.M.; Gee, A.H.; MacKay, J.W.; Lynch, J.A.; Poole, K.E.S.; Segal, N.A. Quantitative Three-Dimensional Assessment of Knee Joint Space Width from Weight-Bearing CT. Radiology 2021, 299, 649–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Kaneda, K.; Harato, K.; Oki, S.; Yamada, Y.; Nakamura, M.; Nagura, T.; Jinzaki, M. Increase in Tibial Internal Rotation Due to Weight-Bearing Is a Key Feature to Diagnose Early-Stage Knee Osteoarthritis: A Study with Upright Computed Tomography. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2022, 23, 253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Fritz, B.; Fritz, J.; Fucentese, S.F.; Pfirrmann, C.W.A.; Sutter, R. Three-Dimensional Analysis for Quantification of Knee Joint Space Width with Weight-Bearing CT: Comparison with Non-Weight-Bearing CT and Weight-Bearing Radiography. Osteoarthr. Cartil. 2022, 30, 671–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Segal, N.A.; Murphy, M.T.; Everist, B.M.; Brown, K.D.; He, J.; Lynch, J.A.; Nevitt, M.C. Clinical Value of Weight-Bearing CT and Radiographs for Detecting Patellofemoral Cartilage Visualized by MRI in the MOST Study. Osteoarthr. Cartil. 2021, 29, 1540–1548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Thawait, G.K.; Demehri, S.; Almuhit, A.; Zbijweski, W.; Yorkston, J.; Del Grande, F.; Zikria, B.; Carrino, J.A.; Siewerdsen, J.H. Extremity Cone-Beam CT for Evaluation of Medial Tibiofemoral Osteoarthritis: Initial Experience in Imaging of the Weight-Bearing and Non-Weight-Bearing Knee. Eur. J. Radiol. 2015, 84, 2564–2570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Segal, N.A.; Nevitt, M.C.; Morales Aquino, M.; McFadden, E.; Ho, M.; Duryea, J.; Tolstykh, I.; Cheng, H.; He, J.; Lynch, J.A.; et al. Improved Responsiveness to Change in Joint Space Width over 24-Month Follow-up: Comparison of 3D JSW on Weight-Bearing CT vs 2D JSW on Radiographs in the MOST Study. Osteoarthr. Cartil. 2023, 31, 406–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Turmezei, T.D.; Low, S.B.; Rupret, S.; Treece, G.M.; Gee, A.H.; MacKay, J.W.; Lynch, J.A.; Poole, K.E.; Segal, N.A. Multiparametric 3-D Analysis of Bone and Joint Space Width at the Knee from Weight Bearing Computed Tomography. Osteoarthr. Imaging 2022, 2, 100069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Segal, N.A.; Nevitt, M.C.; Lynch, J.A.; Niu, J.; Torner, J.C.; Guermazi, A. Diagnostic Performance of 3D Standing CT Imaging for Detection of Knee Osteoarthritis Features. Phys. Sportsmed. 2015, 43, 213–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Bhimani, R.; Sornsakrin, P.; Ashkani-Esfahani, S.; Lubberts, B.; Guss, D.; De Cesar Netto, C.; Waryasz, G.R.; Kerkhoffs, G.M.M.J.; DiGiovanni, C.W. Using Area and Volume Measurement via Weightbearing CT to Detect Lisfranc Instability. J. Orthop. Res. 2021, 39, 2497–2505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Sripanich, Y.; Steadman, J.; Krähenbühl, N.; Rungprai, C.; Mills, M.K.; Saltzman, C.L.; Barg, A. Asymmetric Lambda Sign of the Second Tarsometatarsal Joint on Axial Weight-Bearing Cone-Beam CT Scans of the Foot: Preliminary Investigation for Diagnosis of Subtle Ligamentous Lisfranc Injuries in a Cadaveric Model. Skelet. Radiol. 2020, 49, 1615–1621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Sripanich, Y.; Weinberg, M.W.; Krähenbühl, N.; Rungprai, C.; Saltzman, C.L.; Barg, A. Reliability of Measurements Assessing the Lisfranc Joint Using Weightbearing Computed Tomography Imaging. Arch. Orthop. Trauma Surg. 2021, 141, 775–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Penev, P.; Qawasmi, F.; Mosheiff, R.; Knobe, M.; Lehnert, M.; Krause, F.; Raykov, D.; Richards, G.; Gueorguiev, B.; Klos, K. Ligamentous Lisfranc Injuries: Analysis of CT Findings under Weightbearing. Eur. J. Trauma Emerg. Surg. 2021, 47, 1243–1248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Wijetunga, C.G.; Roebert, J.; Hiscock, R.J.; Bedi, H.S.; Roshan-Zamir, S.; Wang, O.; Fraval, A.; Tate, J.; Eden, M.; Rotstein, A.H. Defining Reference Values for the Normal Adult Lisfranc Joint Using Weightbearing Computed Tomography. J. Foot Ankle Surg. 2023, 62, 382–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Sasaki, R.; Niki, Y.; Kaneda, K.; Yamada, Y.; Nagura, T.; Nakamura, M.; Jinzaki, M. A Novel Anteroposterior Axis of the Tibia for Total Knee Arthroplasty: An Upright Weight-Bearing Computed Tomography Analysis. Knee 2022, 36, 80–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Burssens, A.; Barg, A.; van Ovost, E.; Van Oevelen, A.; Leenders, T.; Peiffer, M.; Bodere, I.; Richter, M.; Barg, A.; Lintz, F.; et al. The Hind- and Midfoot Alignment Computed after a Medializing Calcaneal Osteotomy Using a 3D Weightbearing CT. Int. J. Comput. Assist. Radiol. Surg. 2019, 14, 1439–1447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Smolinski, M.P.; Amadio, J.; Prisk, V.; Conti, S.F.; Miller, M.C. A Comparison of Imaging Outcomes From 2 Weightbearing CT Modalities. Foot Ankle Int. 2023, 44, 1174–1180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Dufrénot, M.; Dagneaux, L.; Fernando, C.; Chabrand, P.; Ollivier, M.; Lintz, F. Three-Dimensional Biometrics Using Weight-Bearing Imaging Shows Relationship between Knee and Hindfoot Axial Alignment. Orthop. Traumatol. Surg. Res. 2023, 109, 103482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Dagneaux, L.; Dufrenot, M.; Bernasconi, A.; Bedard, N.A.; de Cesar Netto, C.; Lintz, F. Three-Dimensional Biometrics to Correlate Hindfoot and Knee Coronal Alignments Using Modern Weightbearing Imaging. Foot Ankle Int. 2020, 41, 1411–1418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Liu, S.Z.; Cao, Q.; Osgood, G.M.; Siewerdsen, J.H.; Stayman, J.W.; Zbijewski, W. Quantitative Assessment of Weight-Bearing Fracture Biomechanics Using Extremity Cone-Beam CT. Proc. SPIE Int. Soc. Opt. Eng. 2020, 11317, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Welck, M.J.; Kaplan, J.; Myerson, M.S. Müller-Weiss Syndrome: Radiological Features and the Role of Weightbearing Computed Tomography Scan. Foot Ankle Spec. 2016, 9, 245–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Krähenbühl, N.; Kvarda, P.; Susdorf, R.; Burssens, A.; Ruiz, R.; Barg, A.; Hintermann, B. Assessment of Progressive Collapsing Foot Deformity Using Semiautomated 3D Measurements Derived From Weightbearing CT Scans. Foot Ankle Int. 2022, 43, 363–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. De Cesar Netto, C.; Godoy-Santos, A.L.; Saito, G.H.; Lintz, F.; Siegler, S.; O’Malley, M.J.; Deland, J.T.; Ellis, S.J. Subluxation of the Middle Facet of the Subtalar Joint as a Marker of Peritalar Subluxation in Adult Acquired Flatfoot Deformity: A Case-Control Study. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Am. 2019, 101, 1838–1844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Netto, C.D.C.; Schon, L.C.; Thawait, G.K.; Da Fonseca, L.F.; Chinanuvathana, A.; Zbijewski, W.B.; Siewerdsen, J.H.; Demehri, S. Flexible Adult Acquired Flatfoot Deformity: Comparison Between Weight-Bearing and Non-Weight-Bearing Measurements Using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Am. 2017, 99, e98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Zhang, Y.; Xu, J.; Wang, X.; Huang, J.; Zhang, C.; Chen, L.; Wang, C.; Ma, X. An in Vivo Study of Hindfoot 3D Kinetics in Stage II Posterior Tibial Tendon Dysfunction (PTTD) Flatfoot Based on Weight-Bearing CT Scan. Bone Jt. Res. 2013, 2, 255–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. de Cesar Netto, C.; Silva, T.; Li, S.; Mansur, N.S.; Auch, E.; Dibbern, K.; Femino, J.E.; Baumfeld, D. Assessment of Posterior and Middle Facet Subluxation of the Subtalar Joint in Progressive Flatfoot Deformity. Foot Ankle Int. 2020, 41, 1190–1197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Day, J.; de Cesar Netto, C.; Nishikawa, D.R.C.; Garfinkel, J.; Roney, A.; J. O’Malley, M.; Deland, J.T.; Ellis, S.J. Three-Dimensional Biometric Weightbearing CT Evaluation of the Operative Treatment of Adult-Acquired Flatfoot Deformity. Foot Ankle Int. 2020, 41, 930–936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. de Cesar Netto, C.; Bernasconi, A.; Roberts, L.; Pontin, P.A.; Lintz, F.; Saito, G.H.; Roney, A.; Elliott, A.; O’Malley, M. Foot Alignment in Symptomatic National Basketball Association Players Using Weightbearing Cone Beam Computed Tomography. Orthop. J. Sports Med. 2019, 7, 2325967119826081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  122. Shakoor, D.; de Cesar Netto, C.; Thawait, G.K.; Ellis, S.J.; Richter, M.; Schon, L.C.; Demehri, S. Weight-Bearing Radiographs and Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Examinations in Adult Acquired Flatfoot Deformity. Foot Ankle Surg. 2021, 27, 201–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Efrima, B.; Barbero, A.; Ramalingam, K.; Indino, C.; Maccario, C.; Usuelli, F.G. Three-Dimensional Distance Mapping to Identify Safe Zones for Lateral Column Lengthening. Foot Ankle Int. 2023, 44, 1061–1069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  124. Kimura, T.; Thorhauer, E.D.; Kindig, M.W.; Sangeorzan, B.J.; Ledoux, W.R. Evaluation of the Foot Arch in Partial Weightbearing Conditions. Foot Ankle Int. 2022, 43, 113–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Jeng, C.L.; Rutherford, T.; Hull, M.G.; Cerrato, R.A.; Campbell, J.T. Assessment of Bony Subfibular Impingement in Flatfoot Patients Using Weight-Bearing CT Scans. Foot Ankle Int. 2019, 40, 152–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Behrens, A.; Dibbern, K.; Lalevée, M.; Alencar Mendes de Carvalho, K.; Lintz, F.; Barbachan Mansur, N.S.; de Cesar Netto, C. Coverage Maps Demonstrate 3D Chopart Joint Subluxation in Weightbearing CT of Progressive Collapsing Foot Deformity. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 19367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Pilania, K.; Jankharia, B.; Monoot, P. Role of the Weight-Bearing Cone-Beam CT in Evaluation of Flatfoot Deformity. Indian J. Radiol. Imaging 2019, 29, 364–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. de Cesar Netto, C.; Barbachan Mansur, N.S.; Lalevee, M.; de Carvalho, K.A.M.; Godoy-Santos, A.L.; Kim, K.C.; Lintz, F.; Dibbern, K. Effect of Peritalar Subluxation Correction for Progressive Collapsing Foot Deformity on Patient-Reported Outcomes. Foot Ankle Int. 2023, 44, 1128–1141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  129. Dibbern, K.N.; Li, S.; Vivtcharenko, V.; Auch, E.; Lintz, F.; Ellis, S.J.; Femino, J.E.; de Cesar Netto, C. Three-Dimensional Distance and Coverage Maps in the Assessment of Peritalar Subluxation in Progressive Collapsing Foot Deformity. Foot Ankle Int. 2021, 42, 757–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Pavani, C.; Belvedere, C.; Ortolani, M.; Girolami, M.; Durante, S.; Berti, L.; Leardini, A. 3D Measurement Techniques for the Hindfoot Alignment Angle from Weight-Bearing CT in a Clinical Population. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 16900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. de Cesar Netto, C.; Bang, K.; Mansur, N.S.; Garfinkel, J.H.; Bernasconi, A.; Lintz, F.; Deland, J.T.; Ellis, S.J. Multiplanar Semiautomatic Assessment of Foot and Ankle Offset in Adult Acquired Flatfoot Deformity. Foot Ankle Int. 2020, 41, 839–848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  132. de Cesar Netto, C.; Shakoor, D.; Dein, E.J.; Zhang, H.; Thawait, G.K.; Richter, M.; Ficke, J.R.; Schon, L.C.; Barg, A.; Lintz, F.; et al. Influence of Investigator Experience on Reliability of Adult Acquired Flatfoot Deformity Measurements Using Weightbearing Computed Tomography. Foot Ankle Surg. 2019, 25, 495–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  133. Kim, K.C.; Fayed, A.; Schmidt, E.; de Carvalho, K.A.M.; Lalevee, M.; Mansur, N.; de Cesar Netto, C. Relationship Between Obesity and Medial Longitudinal Arch Bowing. Foot Ankle Int. 2023, 44, 1181–1191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Burssens, A.; Peeters, J.; Peiffer, M.; Marien, R.; Lenaerts, T.; Vandeputte, G.; Victor, J. Reliability and Correlation Analysis of Computed Methods to Convert Conventional 2D Radiological Hindfoot Measurements to a 3D Setting Using Weightbearing CT. Int. J. Comput. Assist. Radiol. Surg. 2018, 13, 1999–2008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Efrima, B.; Barbero, A.; Ovadia, J.E.; Indino, C.; Maccario, C.; Usuelli, F.G. Classification of the Os Calcis Subtalar Morphology in Symptomatic Flexible Pediatric Pes Planus Deformity Using Weightbearing CT and Distance Mapping. Foot Ankle Int. 2023, 44, 322–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Ortolani, M.; Leardini, A.; Pavani, C.; Scicolone, S.; Girolami, M.; Bevoni, R.; Lullini, G.; Durante, S.; Berti, L.; Belvedere, C. Angular and Linear Measurements of Adult Flexible Flatfoot via Weight-Bearing CT Scans and 3D Bone Reconstruction Tools. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 16139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Dibbern, K.; Vivtcharenko, V.; Salomao Barbachan Mansur, N.; Lalevée, M.; Alencar Mendes de Carvalho, K.; Lintz, F.; Barg, A.; Goldberg, A.J.; de Cesar Netto, C. Distance Mapping and Volumetric Assessment of the Ankle and Syndesmotic Joints in Progressive Collapsing Foot Deformity. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 4801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Marzo, J.; Kluczynski, M.; Notino, A.; Bisson, L. Comparison of a Novel Weightbearing Cone Beam Computed Tomography Scanner Versus a Conventional Computed Tomography Scanner for Measuring Patellar Instability. Orthop. J. Sports Med. 2016, 4, 2325967116673560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  139. Lullini, G.; Belvedere, C.; Busacca, M.; Moio, A.; Leardini, A.; Caravelli, S.; Maccaferri, B.; Durante, S.; Zaffagnini, S.; Marcheggiani Muccioli, G.M. Weight Bearing versus Conventional CT for the Measurement of Patellar Alignment and Stability in Patients after Surgical Treatment for Patellar Recurrent Dislocation. Radiol. Med. 2021, 126, 869–877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Holbrook, H.S.; Bowers, A.F.; Mahmoud, K.; Kelly, D.M. Weight-Bearing Computed Tomography of the Foot and Ankle in the Pediatric Population. J. Pediatr. Orthop. 2022, 42, 321–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Wellenberg, R.H.H.; Schallig, W.; Steenbergen, P.; den Tex, P.; Dobbe, J.G.G.; Streekstra, G.J.; Witbreuk, M.M.E.H.; Buizer, A.I.; Maas, M. Assessment of Foot Deformities in Individuals with Cerebral Palsy Using Weight-Bearing CT. Skelet. Radiol. 2023, 52, 1313–1320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  142. Willey, M.C.; Compton, J.T.; Marsh, J.L.; Kleweno, C.P.; Agel, J.; Scott, E.J.; Bui, G.; Davison, J.; Anderson, D.D. Weight-Bearing CT Scan After Tibial Pilon Fracture Demonstrates Significant Early Joint-Space Narrowing. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Am. 2020, 102, 796–803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  143. Patel, S.; Bernasconi, A.; Thornton, J.; Buraimoh, O.; Cullen, N.P.; Welck, M.J.; Singh, D. Relationship between Foot Posture Index and Weight Bearing Computed Tomography 3D Biometrics to Define Foot Alignment. Gait Posture 2020, 80, 143–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  144. Feldle, P.; Grunz, J.P.; Kunz, A.S.; Patzer, T.S.; Huflage, H.; Hendel, R.; Luetkens, K.S.; Ergün, S.; Bley, T.A.; Conrads, N. Weight-Bearing Gantry-Free Cone-Beam CT of the Lumbar Spine: Image Quality Analysis and Dose Efficiency. Eur. J. Radiol. 2023, 165, 110951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Ashkani Esfahani, S.; Bhimani, R.; Lubberts, B.; Kerkhoffs, G.M.; Waryasz, G.; DiGiovanni, C.W.; Guss, D. Volume Measurements on Weightbearing Computed Tomography Can Detect Subtle Syndesmotic Instability. J. Orthop. Res. 2022, 40, 460–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Borjali, A.; Ashkani-Esfahani, S.; Bhimani, R.; Guss, D.; Muratoglu, O.K.; DiGiovanni, C.W.; Varadarajan, K.M.; Lubberts, B. The Use of Deep Learning Enables High Diagnostic Accuracy in Detecting Syndesmotic Instability on Weight-Bearing CT Scanning. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2023, 31, 6039–6045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Elghazy, M.A.; Hagemeijer, N.C.; Guss, D.; El-Hawary, A.; Johnson, A.H.; El-Mowafi, H.; DiGiovanni, C.W. Screw versus Suture Button in Treatment of Syndesmosis Instability: Comparison Using Weightbearing CT Scan. Foot Ankle Surg. 2021, 27, 285–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Krähenbühl, N.; Bailey, T.L.; Presson, A.P.; Allen, C.M.C.; Henninger, H.B.; Saltzman, C.L.; Barg, A. Torque Application Helps to Diagnose Incomplete Syndesmotic Injuries Using Weight-Bearing Computed Tomography Images. Skelet. Radiol. 2019, 48, 1367–1376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. del Rio, A.; Bewsher, S.M.; Roshan-Zamir, S.; Tate, J.; Eden, M.; Gotmaker, R.; Wang, O.; Bedi, H.S.; Rotstein, A.H. Weightbearing Cone-Beam Computed Tomography of Acute Ankle Syndesmosis Injuries. J. Foot Ankle Surg. 2020, 59, 258–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Hagemeijer, N.C.; Chang, S.H.; Abdelaziz, M.E.; Casey, J.C.; Waryasz, G.R.; Guss, D.; DiGiovanni, C.W. Range of Normal and Abnormal Syndesmotic Measurements Using Weightbearing CT. Foot Ankle Int. 2019, 40, 1430–1437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Hamard, M.; Neroladaki, A.; Bagetakos, I.; Dubois-Ferrière, V.; Montet, X.; Boudabbous, S. Accuracy of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography for Syndesmosis Injury Diagnosis Compared to Conventional Computed Tomography. Foot Ankle Surg. 2020, 26, 265–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Peiffer, M.; Burssens, A.; De Mits, S.; Heintz, T.; Van Waeyenberge, M.; Buedts, K.; Victor, J.; Audenaert, E. Statistical Shape Model-Based Tibiofibular Assessment of Syndesmotic Ankle Lesions Using Weight-Bearing CT. J. Orthop. Res. 2022, 40, 2873–2884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  153. Shakoor, D.; Osgood, G.M.; Brehler, M.; Zbijewski, W.B.; de Cesar Netto, C.; Shafiq, B.; Orapin, J.; Thawait, G.K.; Shon, L.C.; Demehri, S. Cone-Beam CT Measurements of Distal Tibio-Fibular Syndesmosis in Asymptomatic Uninjured Ankles: Does Weight-Bearing Matter? Skelet. Radiol. 2019, 48, 583–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Rooney, P.; Haller, J.; Kleweno, C.; Glass, N.; Davison, J.; Miller, A.; Anderson, D.D.; Marsh, J.L.; Willey, M. Syndesmosis Malposition Assessed on Weight-Bearing CT Is Common After Operative Fixation of Intra-Articular Distal Tibia Plafond Fracture. J. Orthop. Trauma 2022, 36, 658–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  155. Malhotra, K.; Welck, M.; Cullen, N.; Singh, D.; Goldberg, A.J. The Effects of Weight Bearing on the Distal Tibiofibular Syndesmosis: A Study Comparing Weight Bearing-CT with Conventional CT. Foot Ankle Surg. 2019, 25, 511–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  156. Osgood, G.M.; Shakoor, D.; Orapin, J.; Qin, J.; Khodarahmi, I.; Thawait, G.K.; Ficke, J.R.; Schon, L.C.; Demehri, S. Reliability of Distal Tibio-Fibular Syndesmotic Instability Measurements Using Weightbearing and Non-Weightbearing Cone-Beam CT. Foot Ankle Surg. 2019, 25, 771–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Patel, S.; Malhotra, K.; Cullen, N.P.; Singh, D.; Goldberg, A.J.; Welck, M.J. Defining Reference Values for the Normal Tibiofibular Syndesmosis in Adults Using Weight-Bearing CT. Bone Jt. J. 2019, 101, 348–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Hoogervorst, P.; Working, Z.M.; El Naga, A.N.; Marmor, M. In Vivo CT Analysis of Physiological Fibular Motion at the Level of the Ankle Syndesmosis During Plantigrade Weightbearing. Foot Ankle Spec. 2019, 12, 233–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Peiffer, M.; Dhont, T.; Cuigniez, F.; Tampere, T.; Ashkani-Esfahani, S.; D’Hooghe, P.; Audenaert, E.; Burssens, A. Application of External Torque Enhances the Detection of Subtle Syndesmotic Ankle Instability in a Weight-Bearing CT. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2023, 31, 4886–4894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Kihara, T.; Kimura, T.; Saito, M.; Suzuki, N.; Hattori, A.; Kubota, M. Three-Dimensional Analysis of the Windlass Mechanism Using Weightbearing Computed Tomography in Healthy Volunteers. Foot Ankle Int. 2023, 44, 545–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Buckwalter V, J.A.; Scigliano, N.M.; Fleury, I.G.; Watson, N.A.D.; Dibbern, K.N.; Glass, N.A.; Goetz, J.E. Altered Ulnar Variance With Full-Body Weight-Bearing During Handstands With Upper Extremity Weight-Bearing CT. J. Hand Surg. Am. 2023, in press. [CrossRef]
  162. Bernasconi, A.; Netto, C.D.C.; Roberts, L.; Lintz, F.; Godoy-Santos, A.L.; O’Malley, M.J. Foot alignment in symptomatic national football league (NFL) athletes: A weightbearing CT analysis. Acta Ortop. Bras. 2021, 29, 118–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  163. Kawalec, J.S.; Ehredt, D.J.; Bakhaj, K.; Fleck, J.; Nutter, K.; Osher, L. Inaccuracy of Forefoot Axial Radiographs in Determining the Coronal Plane Angle of Sesamoid Rotation in Adult Hallux Valgus Deformity: A Study Using Weightbearing Computed Tomography. J. Am. Podiatr. Med. Assoc. 2021, 111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Lintz, F.; Welck, M.; Bernasconi, A.; Thornton, J.; Cullen, N.P.; Singh, D.; Goldberg, A. 3D Biometrics for Hindfoot Alignment Using Weightbearing CT. Foot Ankle Int. 2017, 38, 684–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  165. Ryan, P.M.; Eakin, J.L.; Goodrum, J.T. Subtle Syndesmotic Instability. J. Am. Acad. Orthop. Surg. 2024, 32, 719–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Amin, A.; Janney, C.; Sheu, C.; Jupiter, D.C.; Panchbhavi, V.K. Weight-Bearing Radiographic Analysis of the Tibiofibular Syndesmosis. Foot Ankle Spec. 2019, 12, 211–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Hastie, G.R.; Akhtar, S.; Butt, U.; Baumann, A.; Barrie, J.L. Weightbearing Radiographs Facilitate Functional Treatment of Ankle Fractures of Uncertain Stability. J. Foot Ankle Surg. 2015, 54, 1042–1046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  168. de-las-Heras Romero, J.; Alvarez, A.M.L.; Sanchez, F.M.; Garcia, A.P.; Porcel, P.A.G.; Sarabia, R.V.; Torralba, M.H. Management of Syndesmotic Injuries of the Ankle. EFORT Open Rev. 2017, 2, 403–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Cornu, O.; Manon, J.; Tribak, K.; Putineanu, D. Traumatic Injuries of the Distal Tibiofibular Syndesmosis. Orthop. Traumatol. Surg. Res. 2021, 107, 102778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Raheman, F.J.; Rojoa, D.M.; Hallet, C.; Yaghmour, K.M.; Jeyaparam, S.; Ahluwalia, R.S.; Mangwani, J. Can Weightbearing Cone-Beam CT Reliably Differentiate Between Stable and Unstable Syndesmotic Ankle Injuries? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2022, 480, 1547–1562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Chen, C.; Jiang, J.T.; Wang, C.; Zou, J.; Shi, Z.M.; Yang, Y.F. Is the Diagnostic Validity of Conventional Radiography for Lisfranc Injury Acceptable? J. Foot Ankle Res. 2023, 16, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Rikken, Q.G.H.; Hagemeijer, N.C.; De Bruijn, J.; Kaiser, P.; Kerkhoffs, G.M.M.J.; DiGiovanni, C.W.; Guss, D. Novel Values in the Radiographic Diagnosis of Ligamentous Lisfranc Injuries. Injury 2022, 53, 2326–2332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  173. De Bruijn, J.; Hagemeijer, N.C.; Rikken, Q.G.H.; Husseini, J.S.; Saengsin, J.; Kerkhoffs, G.M.M.J.; Waryasz, G.; Guss, D.; DiGiovanni, C.W. Lisfranc Injury: Refined Diagnostic Methodology Using Weightbearing and Non-Weightbearing Radiographs. Injury 2022, 53, 2318–2325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  174. Seow, D.; Yasui, Y.; Chan, L.Y.T.; Murray, G.; Kubo, M.; Nei, M.; Matsui, K.; Kawano, H.; Miyamoto, W. Inconsistent Radiographic Diagnostic Criteria for Lisfranc Injuries: A Systematic Review. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2023, 24, 915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Dossett, H.G.; Deckey, D.G.; Clarke, H.D.; Spangehl, M.J. Individualizing a Total Knee Arthroplasty with Three-Dimensional Planning. J. Am. Acad. Orthop. Surg. Glob. Res. Rev. 2024, 8, e24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  176. Orsi, A.D.; Shatrov, J.; Plaskos, C.; Kreuzer, S. Personalized Alignment Techniques Better Restore the Native Trochlear Groove Compared to Systematic Alignment Techniques in Total Knee Arthroplasty. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2024, 32, 915–928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Lee, O.S.; Raheman, F.; Jaiswal, P. The Accuracy of Digital Templating in the Preoperative Planning of Total Knee Arthroplasties: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Knee 2024, 47, 139–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. The, B.; Diercks, R.L.; Van Ooijen, P.M.A.; Van Horn, J.R. Comparison of Analog and Digital Preoperative Planning in Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasties: A Prospective Study of 173 Hips and 65 Total Knees. Acta Orthop. Scand. 2005, 76, 78–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Trickett, R.W.; Hodgson, P.; Forster, M.C.; Robertson, A. The Reliability and Accuracy of Digital Templating in Total Knee Replacement. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Ser. B 2009, 91, 903–906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Bishi, H.; Smith, J.B.V.; Asopa, V.; Field, R.E.; Wang, C.; Sochart, D.H. Comparison of the Accuracy of 2D and 3D Templating Methods for Planning Primary Total Hip Replacement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. EFORT Open Rev. 2022, 7, 70–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Burssens, A.B.M.; Buedts, K.; Barg, A.; Vluggen, E.; Demey, P.; Saltzman, C.L.; Victor, J.M.K. Is Lower-Limb Alignment Associated with Hindfoot Deformity in the Coronal Plane? A Weightbearing CT Analysis. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2020, 478, 154–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Etani, Y.; Hirao, M.; Ebina, K.; Noguchi, T.; Okamura, G.; Tsuboi, H.; Miyama, A.; Tsuji, S.; Kunugiza, Y.; Okada, S.; et al. Improvement of Knee Alignment and Function After Corrective Surgery for Hindfoot Deformity: A Report of 3 Cases. JBJS Case Connect. 2022, 12, e21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  183. Yamasaki, Y.; Maeyama, A.; Miyazaki, K.; Ishimatsu, T.; Yoshimura, I.; Yamamoto, T. Evaluation of the Hindfoot Alignment before and after Total Knee Arthroplasty. J. Clin. Orthop. Trauma 2022, 31, 101947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  184. Nha, K.W.; Han, J.H.; Chae, S.W.; Choi, J.Y. Effect of Medial Closing Wedge Distal Femoral Varization Osteotomy on Coronal Ankle and Hindfoot Alignment. Foot Ankle Int. 2023, 44, 330–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  185. Miyazaki, K.; Maeyama, A.; Matsunaga, T.; Ishimatsu, T.; Yamamoto, T. Pathophysiology of Abnormal Compensation Ability of the Subtalar Joint in the Varus Knee. J. Orthop. Sci. 2023, 29, 1259–1264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Xie, K.; Han, X.; Jiang, X.; Ai, S.; Dai, K.; Yu, Z.; Wu, H.; Qu, X.; Yan, M. The Effect of Varus Knee Deformities on the Ankle Alignment in Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis. J. Orthop. Surg. Res. 2019, 14, 134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  187. Kikuchi, K.; Nakano, N.; Ishida, K.; Kuroda, Y.; Hayashi, S.; Tsubosaka, M.; Kamenaga, T.; Matsushita, T.; Kuroda, R.; Matsumoto, T. Influence of Distal Reference Point of the Tibial Mechanical Axis on the Ankle and Hindlimb Alignment Change after Total Knee Arthroplasty. J. Knee Surg. 2023, 37, 409–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Thienpont, E.; Schwab, P.E.; Cornu, O.; Bellemans, J.; Victor, J. Bone Morphotypes of the Varus and Valgus Knee. Arch. Orthop. Trauma Surg. 2017, 137, 393–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. Jeong, B.O.; Kim, T.Y.; Baek, J.H.; Jung, H.; Song, S.H. Following the Correction of Varus Deformity of the Knee through Total Knee Arthroplasty, Significant Compensatory Changes Occur Not Only at the Ankle and Subtalar Joint, but Also at the Foot. KneeSurg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2018, 26, 3230–3237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  190. Kikuchi, N.; Kanamori, A.; Okuno, K.; Yamazaki, M. Weight-Bearing Line at the Ankle Joint Level Shifted Laterally after Total Knee Arthroplasty for Varus Knee Osteoarthritis: Evaluation of the Hip-to-Calcaneus Line. Orthop. Traumatol. Surg. Res. 2024, 110, 103690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  191. Harvey, J.; Eltayeb, M.; Moulder, E.H.; Muir, R.L.; Sharma, H.K. Compensatory Mechanisms for Proximal & Distal Joint Alignment & Gait in Varus Knee Osteoarthritis Treated with High Tibial Osteotomy: A Systematic Review. J. Orthop. 2024, 54, 148–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  192. Norton, A.A.; Callaghan, J.J.; Amendola, A.; Phisitkul, P.; Wongsak, S.; Liu, S.S.; Fruehling-Wall, C. Correlation of Knee and Hindfoot Deformities in Advanced Knee OA: Compensatory Hindfoot Alignment and Where It Occurs. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2015, 473, 166–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  193. Liu, X.; Zhang, B.; Zhao, C.; Fan, L.; Kang, J. Assessment of Lower Limb Alignment: Supine Weight-Bearing CT Scanograms Compared with a Standing Full-Length Radiograph. Skelet. Radiol. 2024, 53, 1465–1471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  194. Yang, H.Y.; Kang, J.K.; Kim, J.W.; Yoon, T.W.; Seon, J.K. Preoperative Hindfoot Alignment and Outcomes After High Tibial Osteotomy for Varus Knee Osteoarthritis: We Walk on Our Heel, Not Our Ankle. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Am. 2024, 106, 896–905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  195. Park, J.G.; Han, S.B.; Jang, K.M. Association of Preoperative Tibial Varus Deformity With Joint Line Orientation and Clinical Outcome After Open-Wedge High Tibial Osteotomy for Medial Compartment Osteoarthritis: A Propensity Score–Matched Analysis. Am. J. Sports Med. 2021, 49, 3551–3560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  196. Yang, T.W.; Lin, Y.Y.; Hsu, S.C.; Chu, K.C.W.; Hsiao, C.W.; Hsu, C.W.; Bai, C.H.; Chang, C.K.; Hsu, Y.P. Diagnostic Performance of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography for Scaphoid Fractures: A Systematic Review and Diagnostic Meta-Analysis. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 2587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  197. Fitzpatrick, E.; Sharma, V.; Rojoa, D.; Raheman, F.; Singh, H. The Use of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) in Radiocarpal Fractures: A Diagnostic Test Accuracy Meta-Analysis. Skelet. Radiol. 2022, 51, 923–934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  198. Neubauer, J.; Benndorf, M.; Ehritt-Braun, C.; Reising, K.; Yilmaz, T.; Klein, C.; Zajonc, H.; Kotter, E.; Langer, M.; Goerke, S.M. Comparison of the Diagnostic Accuracy of Cone Beam Computed Tomography and Radiography for Scaphoid Fractures. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 3906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  199. Bry, K.; Kortesniemi, M.; Koivikko, M.; Kerttula, L. Comparison of Cone Beam Computed Tomography and Plane Radiographs of Radial Fractures as a Basis for Radiographical Measurements. BMC Med. Imaging 2023, 23, 125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  200. Suojärvi, N.; Sillat, T.; Lindfors, N.; Koskinen, S.K. Radiographical Measurements for Distal Intra-Articular Fractures of the Radius Using Plain Radiographs and Cone Beam Computed Tomography Images. Skelet. Radiol. 2015, 44, 1769–1775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  201. Colville, J.G.; Ray, A.; Harris, M.A.; Spencer, N.; Snaith, B. Evaluating Cone-Beam CT in the Diagnosis of Suspected Scaphoid Fractures in the Emergency Department: Preliminary Findings. Clin. Imaging 2022, 83, 65–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  202. Borel, C.; Larbi, A.; Delclaux, S.; Lapegue, F.; Chiavassa-Gandois, H.; Sans, N.; Faruch-Bilfeld, M. Diagnostic Value of Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) in Occult Scaphoid and Wrist Fractures. Eur. J. Radiol. 2017, 97, 59–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  203. Krayem, M.; Weber Lensing, C.; Fornander, L. Cone-Beam Computed Tomography for Primary Investigation of Wrist Trauma Provides a New Map of Fractures of Carpal Bones. J. Hand Surg. Eur. Vol. 2021, 46, 621–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  204. Mallee, W.H.; Wang, J.; Poolman, R.W.; Kloen, P.; Maas, M.; de Vet, H.C.W.; Doornberg, J.N. Computed Tomography versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging versus Bone Scintigraphy for Clinically Suspected Scaphoid Fractures in Patients with Negative Plain Radiographs. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2015, 2015, CD010023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  205. Roolker, W.; Maas, M.; Broekhuizen, A.H. Diagnosis and Treatment of Scaphoid Fractures, Can Non-Union Be Prevented? Arch. Orthop. Trauma Surg. 1999, 119, 428–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  206. Orji, C.; Reghefaoui, M.; Saavedra Palacios, M.S.; Thota, P.; Peresuodei, T.S.; Gill, A.; Hamid, P. Application of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Diagnosing Scaphoid Fractures: A Systematic Review. Cureus 2023, 15, e47732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  207. Zhang, X.; Yang, Y.; Shen, Y.W.; Zhang, K.R.; Jiang, Z.K.; Ma, L.T.; Ding, C.; Wang, B.Y.; Meng, Y.; Liu, H. Diagnostic Accuracy and Potential Covariates of Artificial Intelligence for Diagnosing Orthopedic Fractures: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis. Eur. Radiol. 2022, 32, 7196–7216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  208. Langerhuizen, D.W.G.; Bulstra, A.E.J.; Janssen, S.J.; Ring, D.; Kerkhoffs, G.M.M.J.; Jaarsma, R.L.; Doornberg, J.N. Is Deep Learning on Par with Human Observers for Detection of Radiographically Visible and Occult Fractures of the Scaphoid? Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2020, 478, 2653–2659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  209. Oeding, J.F.; Kunze, K.N.; Messer, C.J.; Pareek, A.; Fufa, D.T.; Pulos, N.; Rhee, P.C. Diagnostic Performance of Artificial Intelligence for Detection of Scaphoid and Distal Radius Fractures: A Systematic Review. J. Hand Surg. 2024, 49, 411–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  210. Kraus, M.; Anteby, R.; Konen, E.; Eshed, I.; Klang, E. Artificial Intelligence for X-ray Scaphoid Fracture Detection: A Systematic Review and Diagnostic Test Accuracy Meta-Analysis. Eur. Radiol. 2023, 34, 4341–4351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  211. Michelini, G.; Corridore, A.; Torlone, S.; Bruno, F.; Marsecano, C.; Capasso, R.; Caranci, F.; Barile, A.; Masciocchi, C.; Splendiani, A. Dynamic MRI in the Evaluation of the Spine: State of the Art. Acta Biomed. 2018, 89, 89–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  212. Baker, M.A.; MacKay, S. Please Be Upstanding—A Narrative Review of Evidence Comparing Upright to Supine Lumbar Spine MRI. Radiography 2021, 27, 721–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  213. Doktor, K.; Hartvigsen, J.; Hancock, M.; Christensen, H.W.; Fredberg, U.; Boyle, E.; Kindt, M.; Brix, L.; Jensen, T.S. Reliability of Reporting Differences in Degenerative MRI Findings of the Lumbar Spine from the Supine to the Upright Position. Skelet. Radiol. 2022, 51, 2141–2154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  214. Mahato, N.K.; Sybert, D.; Law, T.; Clark, B. Effects of Spine Loading in a Patient with Post-Decompression Lumbar Disc Herniation: Observations Using an Open Weight-Bearing MRI. Eur. Spine J. 2017, 26, S17–S23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  215. Mahato, N.K. Load-Bearing Shifts in Laminar and Ligament Morphology: Comparing Spinal Canal Dimensions Using Supine versus Upright Lumbar MRI in Adults without Back Pain. Indian J. Radiol. Imaging 2023, 33, 344–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  216. Mahato, N.K.; Maharaj, P.; Clark, B.C. Lumbar Spine Anatomy in Supine versus Weight-Bearing Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Detecting Significant Positional Changes and Testing Reliability of Quantification. Asian Spine J. 2024, 18, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jcm 13 05519 g001
Figure 1. Flow chart.
Figure 1. Flow chart.
Jcm 13 05519 g001
Jcm 13 05519 g002
Figure 2. Histogram representing the number of studies published between 2013 and 2023 based on the study design.
Figure 2. Histogram representing the number of studies published between 2013 and 2023 based on the study design.
Jcm 13 05519 g002
Jcm 13 05519 g003
Figure 3. Histogram representing the number of studies published between 2013 and 2023 based on their level of evidence.
Figure 3. Histogram representing the number of studies published between 2013 and 2023 based on their level of evidence.
Jcm 13 05519 g003
Jcm 13 05519 g004
Figure 4. Histogram representing the number of studies published between 2013 and 2023 based on the anatomical area investigated in the same studies.
Figure 4. Histogram representing the number of studies published between 2013 and 2023 based on the anatomical area investigated in the same studies.
Jcm 13 05519 g004
Table 1. List of devices used in studies in this review.
Table 1. List of devices used in studies in this review.
CompanyDeviceBody Parts ScannedN. of Studies%
CarestreamOnsightKnee, ankle, foot, toes (single-leg stance, weightbearing); hand, wrist, forearm, elbow (non-weightbearing)1813.9
Curvebeam AIHiRiseWhole lower limb (double-leg stance, weightbearing); hand, wrist, forearm, elbow (non-weightbearing)10.7
Curvebeam AIPedcatAnkle, foot, toes (double-leg stance, weightbearing)8263.6
Planmed OyVerityKnee, ankle, foot, toes (single-leg stance, weightbearing); hand, wrist, forearm, elbow (non-weightbearing)1914.8
Not specified- 97
129100
Table 2. Design of studies included in this review.
Table 2. Design of studies included in this review.
DesignElective%Trauma%
Prospective Comparative54.8312.5
Prospective Non-comparative65.714.1
Retrospective Comparative6158.61458.3
Retrospective Non-comparative2523.828.3
Cadaveric study54.8312.5
Laboratory study32.814.1
Total105 24
Table 3. Anatomical structures and main conditions analyzed in studies included in this review.
Table 3. Anatomical structures and main conditions analyzed in studies included in this review.
Anatomical AreaElective%Trauma%
Foot and Ankle8883.82082.6
Progressive Collapsing Foot Deformity2225
Hallux Valgus1921.5
Hindfoot alignment1314.7
Ankle osteoarthritis77.9
Cavovarus foot55.6
Foot alignment55.6
Lower limb alignment33.4
Syndesmotic injury33.41260
Foot fractures- 210
Hindfoot instability22.2
Lisfranc instability22.2315
Ankle instability11.1210
Hallux Rigidus11.1
Hindfoot osteoarthritis11.1
Muller-Weiss11.1
Pediatrics11.1
Pediatric deformities11.1
Pilon fracture- 15
Windlass mechanism11.1
Knee1312.528.6
Osteoarthritis76.7
Patellar instability 28.3
Knee Alignment32.8
Knee instability10.9
Total Knee Replacement21.9
Lower Limb21.914.1
Spine10.9-
Wrist10.9
All Joints- 14.1
Total105 24
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Bernasconi, A.; Dechir, Y.; Izzo, A.; D’Agostino, M.; Magliulo, P.; Smeraglia, F.; de Cesar Netto, C.; International Weightbearing CT Society; Lintz, F. Trends in the Use of Weightbearing Computed Tomography. J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13, 5519. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13185519

AMA Style

Bernasconi A, Dechir Y, Izzo A, D’Agostino M, Magliulo P, Smeraglia F, de Cesar Netto C, International Weightbearing CT Society, Lintz F. Trends in the Use of Weightbearing Computed Tomography. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2024; 13(18):5519. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13185519

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bernasconi, Alessio, Yanis Dechir, Antonio Izzo, Martina D’Agostino, Paolo Magliulo, Francesco Smeraglia, Cesar de Cesar Netto, International Weightbearing CT Society, and François Lintz. 2024. "Trends in the Use of Weightbearing Computed Tomography" Journal of Clinical Medicine 13, no. 18: 5519. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13185519

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop