• 1

    Christman RA: Radiographic anatomy of the foot and ankle: part 1. The distal leg. JAPMA 104: 402, 2014.

  • 2

    Ruiz JR, Christman RA, Hillstrom HJ: Anatomical considerations of the peroneal tubercle. JAPMA 83: 563, 1993.

  • 3

    Christman RA: Foot and Ankle Radiology, Churchill Livingstone, St. Louis, 2003.

  • 4

    Harris RI, Beath T: Etiology of peroneal spastic flatfoot. J Bone Joint Surg Br 48: 624, 1948.

  • 5

    Resnick D: Talar ridges, osteophytes, and beaks: a radiologic commentary. Radiology 151: 329, 1984.

  • 6

    Kelikian AS: Sarrafian's Anatomy of the Foot and Ankle, 3rd Ed, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, 2011.

  • 7

    Goergen TG, Danzig LA, Resnick D, et al: Roentgenographic evaluation of the tibiotalar joint. J Bone Joint Surg Am 59: 874, 1977.

Radiographic Anatomy of the Foot and Ankle—Part 2

The Greater Tarsus

Robert A. Christman College of Podiatric Medicine, Western University of Health Sciences, 309 E 2nd St, Pomona, CA 91766. (E-mail: rchristman@westernu.edu)

Search for other papers by Robert A. Christman in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DPM, EdM

Background

Normal radiographic anatomy of the foot and ankle, aside from my previous work, has been addressed only superficially or sparingly in the medical literature. This project correlates detailed radiographic anatomy of the entire adult foot and ankle (two-dimensional) to osteology (three-dimensional).

Methods

Each bone's position was determined after meticulous examination and correlation to an articulated skeleton relative to the image receptor and direction of the x-ray beam, with correlation to the radiograph for confirmation.

Results

Images of each foot and distal leg bone (“front” and “back” perspectives) are presented alongside a corresponding radiographic image for comparison. The normal gross and radiographic anatomy is correlated and described for each radiographic positioning technique.

Conclusions

Foundational knowledge is provided that future researchers can use as a baseline (“normal”) and that students and practitioners can use for comparison when interpreting radiographs and distinguishing abnormal findings. The results of the original project, owing to its broad scope, have been divided into five parts: the lower leg, the greater tarsus (the focus of this article), the lesser tarsus, the metatarsals, and the phalanges.