Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums

You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members, upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, access other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisements in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!

  1. Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
Dismiss Notice
Have you liked us on Facebook to get our updates? Please do. Click here for our Facebook page.
Dismiss Notice
Do you get the weekly newsletter that Podiatry Arena sends out to update everybody? If not, click here to organise this.

Bipartite talus

Discussion in 'General Issues and Discussion Forum' started by NewsBot, Dec 27, 2012.

Tags:
  1. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1

    Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.
    Bipartite talus: A case series and algorithm for treatment
    B. Rose, C. Southgate, L. Louette
    Foot and Ankle Surgery Available online 26 December 2012
     
  2. Rob Kidd

    Rob Kidd Well-Known Member

    They do not say where the Division was. Was it phylogenetic - ie in an os-trigonum area? Can anyone think of an explanation for a division elsewhere?
     
  3. Admin2

    Admin2 Administrator Staff Member

    Here are a couple of images from the paper:
     

    Attached Files:

  4. Rob Kidd

    Rob Kidd Well-Known Member

    I would suggest phylogeny is the culprit. Although this suggests a "very large" os-trigonum, I would put my money behind it. Most would agree with the Freddie Wood Jones version of the reptilian tarsus - the main dissenter is O J Lewis - and I have attached figures from FW Jone's book. As you can see the hominid talus (mammal talus?) is a composite of the precursor reptilian tibialis and intermedius. And we are all familiar with how, once in a while, the posterior talar tubercle remains unfused. I would suggest that we are looking here at an unfused, and large intermedius bone. And they tell us that there is no evolution?

    Rob

    Sorry for my bluntness; I have recently had a gut full of creationists lies, half truths and misquotes - I guess it goes with the territory
     

    Attached Files:

Loading...

Share This Page