Advertisement

Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy

, Volume 41, Issue 1, pp 53–64 | Cite as

Radius of curvature at the talocrural joint surface: inference of subject-specific kinematics

  • Shuhei NozakiEmail author
  • Kota Watanabe
  • Takuya Kato
  • Tsuyoshi Miyakawa
  • Tomoaki Kamiya
  • Masaki Katayose
Original Article
  • 56 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

The coupled behavior of talocrural joint motion is primarily determined by the morphological features of the talar trochlea and tibiofibular mortise. Features of the radius of curvature of the talocrural joint, however, remain unclear. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the radius of curvature at the mid, medial, and lateral regions of both the talar trochlea and the tibial plafond, and to estimate subject-specific kinematics of the talocrural joint.

Methods

Computed tomography images of 44 subjects with healthy talocrural joints were assessed by creating three-dimensional bone models. The radii of curvature of the anterior and posterior regions at the mid, medial, and lateral regions of both the talar trochlea and the tibial plafond were calculated. Hypothetical dorsiflexion and plantarflexion axes of the talocrural joint were estimated from the shape of the talar trochlea. Orientations and distances of these axes were calculated.

Results

At both the talar trochlea and the tibial plafond, the anteromedial and posteromedial radii exhibited the largest coefficients of variation. The anterior-to-posterior radius ratio (APRR) of the medial talar trochlea significantly correlated with the mid APRR, anterior medial-to-lateral radius ratio (MLRR), and posterior MLRR of the trochlea (r = 0.45, 0.52, − 0.60, respectively, and all P < 0.01).

Conclusions

The asymmetric shape of the medial talar trochlea seems to determine a fixed or changing axis of rotation at the talocrural joint. This subject-specific rotational axis of the talocrural joint should be considered in the management of patients with ankle injuries.

Keywords

Talus Tibia Radius Image-based bone models Translation Sliding 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Mr. Tsutomu Horiuchi, Mr. Shinya Owada, and Mr. Taketoshi Tsunemaru from the Department of Imaging Diagnosis at Obihiro Kyokai Hospital for providing computed tomography images. This work was supported by Grants-in-Aid from the Research Committee of Charcot-Marie-Tooth Disease, and the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan (#15ek0109058h002).

Author contributions

SN: Project development, data collection, data analysis, manuscript writing. KW: Data collection and management, manuscript editing. TK: Data collection, data analysis. TM: Data management, manuscript editing. TK: Data management, manuscript editing. MK: Project development, manuscript editing.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest with regard to this work.

References

  1. 1.
    Adam C, Eckstein F, Milz S, Putz R (1998) The distribution of cartilage thickness within the joints of the lower limb of elderly individuals. J Anat 193(Pt 2):203–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Akiyama K, Sakai T, Sugimoto N, Yoshikawa H, Sugamoto K (2012) Three-dimensional distribution of articular cartilage thickness in the elderly talus and calcaneus analyzing the subchondral bone plate density. Osteoarthr Cartil 20:296–304.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2011.12.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Armen SK, Shahan KS (2011) Sarrafian’s anatomy of the foot and ankle: descriptive, topographic, functional, 3rd edn. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 40–119Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barnett CH, Napier JR (1952) The axis of rotation at the ankle joint in man; its influence upon the form of the talus and the mobility of the fibula. J Anat 86:1–9Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Imai K, Tokunaga D, Takatori R, Ikoma K, Maki M, Ohkawa H, Ogura A, Tsuji Y, Inoue N, Kubo T (2009) In vivo three-dimensional analysis of hindfoot kinematics. Foot Ankle Int 30:1094–1100.  https://doi.org/10.3113/fai.2009.1094 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kitaoka HB, Luo ZP, An KN (1997) Three-dimensional analysis of normal ankle and foot mobility. Am J Sports Med 25:238–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Latimer B, Ohman JC, Lovejoy CO (1987) Talocrural joint in African hominoids: implications for Australopithecus afarensis. Am J Phys Anthropol 74:155–175.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.1330740204 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lundberg A, Goldie I, Kalin B, Selvik G (1989) Kinematics of the ankle/foot complex: plantarflexion and dorsiflexion. Foot Ankle 9:194–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lundberg A, Svensson OK, Nemeth G, Selvik G (1989) The axis of rotation of the ankle joint. J Bone Jt Surg Br 71:94–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Magerkurth O, Frigg A, Hintermann B, Dick W, Valderrabano V (2010) Frontal and lateral characteristics of the osseous configuration in chronic ankle instability. Br J Sports Med 44:568–572.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsm.2008.048462 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nozaki S, Watanabe K, Katayose M (2016) Three-dimensional analysis of talar trochlea morphology: implications for subject-specific kinematics of the talocrural joint. Clin Anat 29:1066–1074.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ca.22785 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Orr JD, Dutton JR, Fowler JT (2012) Anatomic location and morphology of symptomatic, operatively treated osteochondral lesions of the talus. Foot Ankle Int 33:1051–1057.  https://doi.org/10.3113/FAI.2012.1051 doiCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Portney LG, Watkins MP (2009) Foundations of clinical research: applications to practice. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schaefer KL, Sangeorzan BJ, Fassbind MJ, Ledoux WR (2012) The comparative morphology of idiopathic ankle osteoarthritis. J Bone Jt Surg Am 94:e181.  https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.l.00063 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Siegler S, Toy J, Seale D, Pedowitz D (2013) New observations on the morphology of the talar dome and its relationship to ankle kinematics. Clin Biomech 29:1–6.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2013.10.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stagni R, Leardini A, Ensini A, Cappello A (2005) Ankle morphometry evaluated using a new semi-automated technique based on X-ray pictures. Clin Biomech 20:307–311.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2004.11.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tumer N, Blankevoort L, van de Giessen M, Terra MP, de Jong PA, Weinans H, Tuijthof GJ, Zadpoor AA (2016) Bone shape difference between control and osteochondral defect groups of the ankle joint. Osteoarthr Cartil 24:2108–2115.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2016.07.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wiewiorski M, Hoechel S, Wishart K, Leumann A, Muller-Gerbl M, Valderrabano V, Nowakowski AM (2012) Computer tomographic evaluation of talar edge configuration for osteochondral graft transplantation. Clin Anat 25:773–780.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ca.22042 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yamaguchi S, Sasho T, Kato H, Kuroyanagi Y, Banks SA (2009) Ankle and subtalar kinematics during dorsiflexion–plantarflexion activities. Foot Ankle Int 30:361–366.  https://doi.org/10.3113/FAI.2009.0361 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center of Sports MedicineHokkaido Obihiro Kyokai HospitalObihiroJapan
  2. 2.Second Division of Physical Therapy, School of Health SciencesSapporo Medical UniversitySapporoJapan
  3. 3.Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, School of MedicineSapporo Medical UniversitySapporoJapan

Personalised recommendations