• 1

    Palladino SJ: “Preoperative Evaluation of the Bunion Patient: Etiology, Biomechanics, Clinical and Radiographic Assessment,” in Textbook of Bunion Surgery, 2nd Ed, ed by J Gerbert, p 1, Futura Publishing Co, New York. ,1991. .

  • 2

    Bryant A, Tinley P, Singer K: A comparison of radiographic measurements in normal, hallux valgus, and hallux limitus feet. .J Foot Ankle Surg 39::39. ,2000. .

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    Coughlin MJ: “Juvenile Hallux Valgus,” in Surgery of the Foot and Ankle, 7th Ed, ed by MJ Coughlin, RA Mann, p 270, Mosby, St Louis. ,1999. .

  • 4

    Kilmartin TE, Barrington RL, Wallace WA: Metatarsus primus varus: a statistical study. .J Bone Joint Surg Br 73::937. ,1991. .

  • 5

    Schuberth JM: “Técnicas Quirúrgicas del Primer Radio,” in Atlas a Color y Texto de Cirugía del Antepié, ed by R Butterworth, GL Dockery, p 195, Ortocen, Madrid. ,1992. .

  • 6

    Martin DE, Pontious J: “Introduction and Evaluation of Hallux Abducto Valgus,” in McGlamry’s Comprehensive Textbook of Foot and Ankle Surgery, 3rd Ed, Vol 1, ed by AS Banks, MS Downey, DE Martin, SJ Miller, p 481, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia. ,2001. .

  • 7

    Michaud TC: Foot Orthoses and Other Forms of Conservative Foot Care, Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore. ,1997. .

  • 8

    Moreno JL: Podología General y Biomecánica, Masson, Barcelona. ,2003. .

  • 9

    Vito G, Kalish S: “Biomechanical Radiographic Evaluation,” in The Biomechanics of the Foot and Ankle, 2nd Ed, ed by RA Donatelli, p 137, FA Davis Co, Philadelphia. ,1996. .

  • 10

    Bresnahan PJ: “Pediatric Abnormalities of Position,” in Foot and Ankle Radiology, ed by RA Christman, p 303, Churchill Livingstone, St Louis. ,2003. .

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    Root ML, Orien WP, Weed JH: Normal and Abnormal Function of the Foot, Vol 2, Clinical Biomechanics Corp, Los Angeles. ,1977. .

  • 12

    Gentili A, Mashih S, Yao L, et al: Pictorial review: foot axes and angles. .Br J Radiol 69::968. ,1996. .

  • 13

    Engel E, Erlick N, Krems I: A simplified metatarsus adductus angle. .JAPA 73::620. ,1983. .

  • 14

    Farber DC, Deorio JK, Steel MW: Goniometric versus computerized angle measurement in assessing hallux valgus. .Foot Ankle Int 26::234. ,2005. .

  • 15

    Pique-Vidal C, Maled-Garcia I, Arabi-Moreno J, et al: Radiographic angles in hallux valgus: differences between measurements made manually and with a computerized program. .Foot Ankle Int 27::175. ,2006. .

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16

    Dominguez G, Munuera PV, Lafuente G: Relative metatarsal protrusion in the adult: a preliminary study. .JAPMA 96::238. ,2006. .

  • 17

    Munuera PV, Dominguez G, Polo J, et al: Medial deviation of the first metatarsal in incipient hallux valgus deformity. .Foot Ankle Int 27::1030. ,2006. .

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18

    Testud L, Latarjet A: Tratado de Anatomía Humana, 9th Ed, Salvat Editores SA, Barcelona. ,1988. .

  • 19

    Solano A, Brill W, Tey M, et al: “Normoalineación de las Extremidades Inferiores en el Adulto,” in Desalineaciones Torsionales de las Extremidades Inferiores. Implicaciones Clinicopatológicas, Monografías SECOT 2, ed by J Ballester, p 11, Masson, Barcelona. ,2001. .

  • 20

    Braten M, Terjesen T, Rossvoll I: Femoral anteversion in normal adults: ultrasound measurements in 50 men and 50 women. .Acta Orthop Scand 63::29. ,1992. .

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21

    Brouwer KJ, Molenaar JC, Van Ling B: Rotational deformities after femoral shaft fractures in childhood: a retrospective study 27–32 years after the accident. .Acta Orthop Scand 52::81. ,1981. .

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22

    Kapandji AI: Fisiología Articular, Miembro Inferior 5th Ed, Editorial Médica Panamericana, Madrid. ,1999. .

  • 23

    Palastanga N, Field D, Soames R: Anatomy and Human Movement, 4th Ed, Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford. ,2002. .

  • 24

    Miralles RC, Miralles I, Puig M: “Rodilla,” in Biomecánica Clínica de los Tejidos y las Articulaciones del Aparato Locomotor, 2nd Ed, ed by RC Miralles, I Miralles, p 233, Masson, Barcelona. ,2005. .

  • 25

    Steele DG: Sex identification on the basis of the tarsals. .Am J Phys Antropol 45::581. ,1976. .

  • 26

    Smith SL: Attribution of foot bones to sex and population groups. .J Forensic Sci 42::186. ,1997. .

  • 27

    Ferrari J, Hopkinson DA, Linney AD: Size and shape differences between male and female foot bones: is the female foot predisposed to hallux abducto valgus deformity?. JAPMA 94::434. ,2004. .

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28

    Staheli LT, Corbertt M, Wyss C, et al: Lower-extremity rotational problems in children: normal values to guide management. .J Bone Joint Surg Am 67::39. ,1985. .

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29

    Lafuente G, Dominguez G, Munuera PV, et al: Patrón rotador de la extremidad inferior: concepto, valores normales y relación con el ángulo de la marcha y la movilidad del primer dedo. .Rev Esp Podol 16::6. ,2005. .

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30

    Murray MP, Kory RC, Sepic SB: Walking patterns of normal women. .Arch Phys Med Rehabil 51::637. ,1970. .

  • 31

    Murray MP, Drought AB, Kory RC: Walking patterns of normal men. .J Bone Joint Surg Am 46::335. ,1964. .

  • 32

    Seber S, Hazer B, Kose N, et al: Rotational profile of the lower extremity and foot progression angle: computerized tomographic examination of 50 male adults. .Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 120::255. ,2000. .

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 33

    Dougan S: The angle of gait. .Am J Phys Anthrop 7::275. ,1924. .

  • 34

    Patek SD: The angle of gait in women. .Am J Phys Anthrop 9::273. ,1926. .

  • 35

    Ferrari J, Watkinson D: Foot pressure measurement differences between boys and girls with reference to hallux valgus deformity and hypermobility. .Foot Ankle Int 26::739. ,2005. .

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 36

    Henning EM, Staats A, Rosenbaum D: Plantar pressure distribution patterns of young school children in comparison to adults. .Foot Ankle 15::35. ,1994. .

  • 37

    Henning EM, Rosenbaum D: Pressure distribution patterns under the feet of children in comparison with adults. .Foot Ankle 11::306. ,1991. .

  • 38

    Griffiths TA, Palladino SJ: Metatarsus adductus and selected radiographic measurements of the first ray in normal feet. .JAPMA 82::616. ,1992. .

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 39

    Sanner WH: “Foot Segmental Relationships and Bone Morphology,” in Foot and Ankle Radiology, ed by RA Christman, p 272, Churchill Livingstone, St Louis. ,2003. .

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • 40

    Banks AS, Hsu YS, Mariash S, et al: Juvenile hallux abducto valgus association with metatarsus adductus. .JAPMA 84::219. ,1994. .

Metatarsus Adductus Angle in Male and Female Feet

Normal Values With Two Measurement Techniques

Gabriel Domínguez PhD1 and Pedro V. Munuera Lic Pod, PhD1
View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Podiatrics, University of Seville, Seville, Spain.
Restricted access

Background: The literature contains several techniques for calculating metatarsal adductus angle. Most common systems use the fourth metatarsal cuboid joint and the fifth metatarsal cuboid joint. Although both systems are quite different, normal values of metatarsus adductus angle have not been established with each system of measurement.

Methods: Two hundred six radiographic images of feet in dorsoplantar projection were used to measure the metatarsus adductus angle using two different reference points: the joint between the fourth metatarsal and the cuboid and the joint between the fifth metatarsal and the cuboid.

Results: Comparison of the results of the two measurement techniques showed significant differences (P < .05). The values of the metatarsus adductus angle also showed significant differences in men versus women (P < .05). The reliability of the measurements was checked by using an intra- and inter-evaluator test performed by two evaluators.

Conclusion: Data showed the reliability of both systems of measurement, although significant differences in the metatarsal adductus angle mean value were found using these systems of measurement in the same foot. On the other hand, significant differences were found in mean values of metatarsus adductus angle between male and female feet. (J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 98(5): 364–369, 2008)

Corresponding author: Gabriel Domínguez, PhD, Departamento de Podología, Centro Docente de Fisioterapia y Podología, C/ Avicena, s/n, 41009 Seville, Spain. (E-mail: gdominguez@us.es)