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. Everything that you are ever going to want to know about running shoes: Running Shoes Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Have you considered the Critical Thinking and Skeptical Boot Camp, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. 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.

Cadaver study of STJ neutral

Discussion in 'Biomechanics, Sports and Foot orthoses' started by NewsBot, Aug 15, 2008.

  1. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1

    Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.
    Assessment of subtalar joint neutral position: a cadaveric study.
    Chen YX, Yu GR, Mei J, Zhou JQ, Wang W.
    Chin Med J (Engl). 2008 Apr 20;121(8):735-9.
     
  2. 10 degrees eversion= isn't that maximal pronation by Root's observations? Nice study.
     
  3. davidh

    davidh Podiatry Arena Veteran

    Good point.
     
  4. David Smith

    David Smith Well-Known Member

    Dear All

    There are a couple of things in this paper that are not clear.

    Assuming the neutral position was as ISB protocol (diagram - reference neutral 1R-3R)

    1) What was the total possible surface area of STJ that was covered by the pressure film?

    2) Were the positions of interest measured (diagram Max Contact 1N-3N) as individual displacements or as a triplanar motion that included all three possible combinations. EG when in the closed kinetic chain ie weight bearing the STJ joint does not have to evert 10dgs to achieve 20dgs of dorsiflexion.

    How would the different methods, if used, affect the total contact areas?

    3) It appears the position of neutral used was a nominal position as set out by the ISB. (diagram - Reference neutral 1R-3R)

    How did the palpated position of neutral compare to this for each cohort and as a mean for the test population?

    Area of potential error

    1) The fuji film indicates perpendicular force and on the curved surface the force measured is a function of the sine of the angle of the applied force. This may have been lower than the mimimum threshold of 0.5MPa. (diagram 1N)
    The authors only touch on this area of error. (pge 736 specimin loading)

    Areas of limitations

    1) We do not no the discreet force / area distribution so it is not possible to know the mechanical effect of the contact areas without the magnitude of discreet applied forces. (Diagram 1N 2N 1EV) and (diagram - contact areas A, B, C, D)

    1a) In Diagram - contact areas, (copied from Chen's paper page 737) if the discreet force applied to each area on 'A' (in the horizontal plane) were equal, in terms of moments about the STJ axis, then this may result in joint stability. If these forces are then distorted as seen in diagrams 'B,C,D' then this may result in joint instability.

    1b) The same may be said about these forces when considered in the frontal plane. Even tho the contact area may be greater in dia 1EV the centre of force may be translated laterally of the STJ axis and increase moments about the STJ axis. These moments (Mcof) need to be balance by some other opposing force from a soft tissue perhaps (opposing force = of). So the Mof + Mcof = zero. Clealy then although there is greater apparent congruence the joint is unstable and require other forces for stability. This could lead to pathology potentialy.

    Therefore it is possible that the congruency (where congruency means magnitude of surface area contact) is greater than the results show but are not measured due to losses in data input. Or less congruency but with optimum force distribution can result in better joint stability or a combination of both.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    Your thoughts

    Cheers Dave
     
  5. please e-mail full paper.
     
  6. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Articles:
    6
    Big assumption...which model of STJ neutral did they use as the reference or starting point? I assume it probably was the ISB one ....but thats not the one that we traditionally use associated with talonavicular cogruity (or whatever you use) ...
     
  7. efuller

    efuller MVP

    Anybody have a reference of why the position of the joint where maximum area of joint contact is seen is relevant. Are tissue stress tolerances exceeded when there is 85% of maximal contact? For all joints? So many ignored assumptions.

    Cheers,

    Eric
     
  8. David Smith

    David Smith Well-Known Member

    Craig

    The ISB protocol is the one they refer to in the paper but do not actually asy that is the one they used. However there is a written description of the neutral position and extrapolating from the diagrams in the paper of the block used to position the STJ I assumed the neutral reference was as my diagrams show in my last post.

    I've attached the paper in PDF
     

    Attached Files:

Loading...

Share This Page