MacDonald et al 1155 Figure 6. Comparison of the degree of correction of joint angles in the three reconstruction techniques. (A) All reconstruction types demonstrated significant improvement in correcting the T-1MT abduction angle compared to the severe flatfoot model. However, they were still significantly greater than the initial measurement. (B) The lateral T-1MT angle was significantly improved compared to severe model in both the spring ligament and TCNL reconstructions. The isolated deltoid ligament reconstruction did not show significant difference in T-1MT angle compared to the severe model and was significantly higher compared to the initial measurement. (C) The TCNL reconstruction technique was the only technique that corrected both subtalar and (D) tibiotalar valgus deformities and improved peritalar stability across all joints. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. Baxter et al, we developed a 2-limb (tibionavicular and tibiocalcaneal) anatomic reconstruction of TCNL.1,2,9 A biomechanical study performed by Kelly et al14 tested the TCNL reconstruction in their cadaveric flatfoot model, which demonstrated a significantly diminished tibiotalar static joint reaction force (29%) associated with spring ligament injury (1.5 cm). They noted subsequent restoration of the tibiotalar and talonavicular joint reaction force associated with the tibionavicular limb reconstruction. Further restoration of the tibiotalar joint reaction force was noted with tibiocalcaneal limb reconstruction. Although their study was novel in measuring the joint reaction force in noninvasive manner, it was limited by the nonweightbearing nature of the model.