Abstract
BACKGROUND: Progressive collapsing foot deformity (PCFD) is a complex 3-dimensional (3-D) deformity with varying degrees of hindfoot valgus, forefoot abduction, and midfoot varus. The first aim of this study was to perform a 3-D analysis of the talus morphology between symptomatic PCFD patients that underwent operative flatfoot correction and controls. The second aim was to investigate if there is an impact of individual talus morphology on the success of operative flatfoot correction. METHODS: We reviewed all patients that underwent lateral calcaneal lengthening for correction of PCFD between 2008 and 2018 at our clinic. Radiographic flatfoot parameters on preoperative and postoperative radiographs were assessed. Additionally, 3-D surface models of the tali were generated using computed tomography (CT) data. The talus morphology of 44 flatfeet was compared to 3-D models of 50 controls without foot or ankle pain of any kind. RESULTS: Groups were comparable regarding demographics. Talus morphology differed significantly between PCFD and controls in multiple aspects. There was a 2.6° increased plantar flexion (22.3° versus 26°; p = 0.02) and medial deviation (31.7° and 33.5°; p = 0.04) of the talar head in relation to the body in PCFD patients compared to controls. Moreover, PCFD were characterized by an increased valgus (difference of 4.6°; p = 0.01) alignment of the subtalar joint. Satisfactory correction was achieved in all cases, with an improvement of the talometatarsal-angle and the talonavicular uncoverage angle of 5.6° ± 9.7 (p = 0.02) and 9.9° ± 16.3 (p = 0.001), respectively. No statistically significant correlation was found between talus morphology and the correction achieved or loss of correction one year postoperatively. CONCLUSION: The different morphological features mentioned above might be contributing or risk factors for progression to PCFD. However, despite the variety of talar morphology, which is different compared to controls, the surgical outcome of calcaneal lengthening osteotomy was not affected. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.