Should we be taking about 'beams' rather than 'columns' in the foot?

Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.

@TedJed planted this seed.
@Kevin Kirby talks about using engineering terms and using precise terminology

We talk about, for eg, 'the medial column' of the foot; etc

Columns are vertical and beams are horizontal

Should we not be talking about, for eg, 'the medial beam' of the foot; etc

 

Yes, we should call them 'beams' for engineering accuracy.
Thank you Steve Urry (PhD in 'Engineering' I think?) for diplomatically pointing out my incorrect use of the term 'column' when describing a biomechanical thesis of how the medial and lateral beams function.
Accurate descriptors serve us, me thinks.

 

Hicks discussed beam versus arch in the 1950's The problem with the medial column (err, first ray) is that it is both a beam and an arch. The windlass is a tied arch. The plantar ligaments of the met cuneiform, cun-navicular, and talo navicular joints create a discontinuous beam. The beam and arch effect both create resistance to bending moment. The important thing to understand is that there are structure(s) under compression and structure(s) under tension. What you call them is less important than the understanding of how they work. What you call them can help, or hinder, the understanding of how things work.

Then there is the historic use of medial column and lateral column. The problem with trying to "correct" prior terminology is that you might lose some people along the way. We all like shortcuts in writing. It's nice not to have name all the bones and ligaments to completely describe what we are talking about. It is important to be aware of when more precision is needed. As I am getting up in age, I'm getting more resistant to change. Most of the time, the term column will adequately describe the anatomical structures that you are concerned with.

Eric

 

I agree with Eric. The foot is a type of tied arch which Hicks so well described over 60 years ago. It would be just as inaccurate to call the navicular, cuneiforms, and medial three metatarsal the "medial beam" since, like Eric so clearly stated, the bones of the arch are discontinuous, and not one rigid, continuous, load-bearing element.

Beam is defined in engineering as:

a rigid member or structure supported at each end,subject to bending stresses from a direction perpendicular to its length.

Column is define as in Stedman's Medical Dictionary as:

Any of various tubular or pillarlike supporting structures in the body, such as the spinal column, each generally having a single tissue origin and function.

In humans, while upright, the spinal column is vertical, during horizontal activities, the spinal column is horizontal. Should we change the name of the spinal column to the "spinal beam" or "vertebral beam" when someone lies down to go to sleep or wants to go for a swim? NO. Do we call the vertebral column in dogs, cats, horses, pigs and all other quadripeds the "vertebral beam" since their vertebral column is oriented horizontally? No.

That is not to say, that an understanding of beam mechanics from our engineering colleagues isn't useful in understanding the biomechanics of the loading forces acting on the long bones of the foot and lower extremity, some being horizontally-oriented (i.e. metatarsals) and some being vertically-oriented (i.e. femur, tibia and fibula). However, I think that unless the proposed name change is better or more accurate, then I wouldn't change it from the long-standing name that most everyone seems to understand.