DOI: 10.1177/24730114261471159 ISSN: 2473-0114

Does Conventional Radiography Overrepresent Joint Space Narrowing in Hallux Rigidus? A Comparative Study With Weightbearing CT Imaging

Ahmed Saleh, Vineel Mallavarapu, Nacime Salomao Barbachan Mansur, Aly M. Fayed, Cesar de Cesar Netto

Background:

Conventional weightbearing radiographs are the gold standard for grading hallux rigidus (HR), yet clinical symptoms often do not correlate with radiographic severity. This study compared 2-dimensional (2D) weightbearing radiographs with weightbearing computed tomography (WBCT) to evaluate if traditional imaging overrepresents joint degeneration.

Methods:

A retrospective study of 21 patients (13 males; average age 55.9 years) with HR was conducted. All patients had both weightbearing radiographs and WBCT. Two fellowship-trained orthopaedic surgeons measured the first metatarsophalangeal joint (first MTPJ) space, dorsal osteophyte height, and dorsal narrowing percentage. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs).

Results:

Joint space width was significantly larger on WBCT (1.9 ± 0.44 mm) compared to radiographs (0.92 ± 0.53 mm; P  < .001). WBCT also showed significantly less narrowing of the dorsal articular surface (22.78% ± 8.71% vs 46.57% ± 18.8%, P  < .001). Inter-rater reliability for joint space narrowing was excellent for WBCT (ICC = 0.91) but moderate for radiographs (ICC = 0.67; P  < .001). WBCT was more sensitive in detecting loose bodies and sesamoid changes.

Conclusion:

WBCT demonstrated consistently larger joint-space measurements and less dorsal joint-space narrowing compared with conventional radiographs, along with substantially higher inter-rater reliability for joint space narrowing. These findings indicate a systematic measurement difference between modalities, with radiographs tending to overrepresent joint-space loss. This discrepancy may help explain why joint-preserving procedures such as cheilectomy can succeed even when radiographs appear advanced.

Level of Evidence:

Level III, retrospective comparative study.

More from our Archive