Parametrization of the Calcaneus and Medial Cuneiform to Aid Potential Advancements in Flatfoot Surgery

TL;DR

This study analyzes the shape variability of two foot bones to improve surgical planning for flatfoot correction.

Contribution

The study introduces a parametrization method for calcaneus and medial cuneiform bones using statistical shape analysis.

Findings

Principal Component Analysis revealed key shape variations in the calcaneus and medial cuneiform.

Variability was found in specific regions of the bones but not at the osteotomy sites.

Results suggest potential for improved surgical planning and robotic surgery applications.

Abstract

Introduction: Flatfoot is a condition commonly seen in children; however, there is general disagreement over its incidence, characterization and correction. Painful flatfoot accompanied with musculoskeletal and soft tissue problems requires surgery to avoid arthritis in adulthood, the most common surgical approach being two osteotomies to the calcaneus and medial cuneiform bones of the foot. Objectives: This study focuses on the parametrization of these two bones to understand their bone morphology differences in a population sample among 23 normal subjects. Population differences could help in understanding whether bone shape may be an important factor in aiding surgical planning and outcomes. Methods: A total of 45 sets of CT scans of these subjects were used to generate surface meshes of the two bones and converted to be iso-topological meshes, simplifying the application of Generalized Procrustes Analysis and Principal Component Analysis, allowing the main sources of variation between the subjects to be quantified. Results: For the calcaneus, 16 Principal Components (PCs) and, for the medial cuneiform, 12 PCs were sufficient to describe 90% of the dataset variability. The quantitative and qualitative analyses confirm that for the calcaneus PC1 describes the Achilles attachment location and PC2 largely describes the anterior part of the bone. For the medial cuneiform, PC1 describes the medial part of the bone, while PC2 mainly describes the superior part. Conclusion: Most importantly, the PCs did not seem to describe the osteotomy sites for both bones, suggesting low population variability at the bone cutting points. Further studies are needed to evaluate how shape variability impacts surgical outcomes. Future implications could include better surgical planning and may pave the way for complex robotic surgeries to become a reality.

Figures