advertising
-
1
Dominguez G, Munuera PV, La fuente G, et al: Revisión bibliográfica de los métodos de medición de la protusión metatarsal. .Rev Esp Podol 16::72. ,2005. .
-
2
Morton DJ: Structural factors in static disorders of the foot. .Am J Surg 9::315. ,1930. .
-
3
Harris RI, Beath T: Report 15th Army Foot Survey, National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa. ,1947. .
-
4
Harris RI, Beath T: The short first metatarsal. .J Bone Joint Surg Am 31::553. ,1949. .
-
5
Hardy RH, Clapham JCR: Observations on hallux valgus. .J Bone Joint Surg Br 33::376. ,1951. .
-
6
LaPorta G, Melillo T, Olinsky D: X-ray evaluation of hallux abducto valgus deformity. .JAPA 64::544. ,1974. .
-
7
Valley BA, Reese HW: Guidelines for reconstructing the metatarsal parabola with the shortening osteotomy. .JAPMA 81::406. ,1991. .
-
8
Oller A: Biomecánica del pie. .Rev Esp Podol 5::17. ,1994. .
-
9
Munuera Martinez PV, Lafuente Sotillos G, Dominguez Maldonado G, et al: Morphofunctional study of brachymetatarsia of the fourth metatarsal. .JAPMA 94::347. ,2004. .
-
10
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. .
-
11
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. .
-
12
Gentili A, Masih S, Yao L, et al: Pictorial review: foot axes and angles. .Br J Radiol 69::968. ,1996. .
-
13
LaPorta DM, Melillo TV, Heterington VJ: “Preoperative Assessment in Hallux Valgus,” in Hallux Valgus and Forefoot Surgery, ed by JH Hetherington, p 107, Churchill Livingstone, New York. ,1994. .
-
14
Coughlin MJ, Saltzman CL, Nunley JA: Angular measurement in the evaluation of hallux valgus deformities: a report of the Ad Hoc Committee of the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society on Angular Measurements. .Foot Ankle Int 23::68. ,2002. .
-
15
Testud L, Latarjet A: Tratado de Anatomía Humana, 9th Ed, Salvat Editores SA, Barcelona. ,1988. .
-
16
Steele DG: The estimation of sex on the basis of the talus and calcaneus. .Am J Phys Anthropol 45::581. ,1976. .
-
17
Smith SL: Attribution of foot bones to sex and population groups. .J Forensic Sci 42::186. ,1997. .
-
18
Kapandji AI: Fisiología Articular: Miembro Inferior, 5th Ed, Editorial Médica Panamericana, Madrid. ,1999. .
-
19
Palastanga N, Field D, Soames R: Anatomy and Human Movement, 4th Ed, Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford. ,2002. .
-
20
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. .
-
21
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. .
-
22
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. .
-
23
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. .
-
24
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. .
Metatarsal Protrusion Angle
Values of Normality
Search for other papers by Gabriel Domínguez in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Pedro V. Munuera in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Mercedes Lomas in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Background: We performed an adaptation of the system of evaluation of metatarsal protrusion described by Oller in 1994 to study the metatarsal parabola group.
Methods: The system of measurement was applied to the five metatarsals of 169 normal feet (72 feet of women and 97 feet of men) according to the inclusion criteria established.
Results: The mean ± SD metatarsal protrusion angle with respect to the second ray in women was 87.49° ± 5.48° for metatarsal I, 70.00° ± 5.74° for metatarsal III, 63.47° ± 4.17° for metatarsal IV, and 56.38° ± 3.27° for metatarsal V. In men, the values were 85.30° ± 6.75° for metatarsal I, 68.00° ± 6.72° for metatarsal III, 60.56° ± 4.61° for metatarsal IV, and 54.13° ± 3.75° for metatarsal V. The comparative analysis between women and men showed significant differences (P < .05) for all of the values of metatarsal protrusion.
Conclusions: The comparative analysis between women and men indicates a possible difference between the anthropometric values of these variables in humans, suggesting a possible repercussion on the biomechanical patterns by sex. (J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 99(1): 49–53, 2009)
advertising
