The joint-contact area of the ankle. The contribution of the posterior malleolus.

Effect of Implantation Accuracy on Ankle Contact Mechanics with a Metallic Focal Resurfacing Implant

“…Contact areas measured in the intact ankles were also consistent with those reported in the literature for similarly configured loadings [49][50][51][52][53] . However, reduced (subfunctional) loads were applied in the present experiments, in the interest of protecting the integrity of the cadaveric tissues.…”

Treatment of osteochondral defects of the talus

“…Th ese loads represent 1.5 up to 3 times body weight and are within the range of previously reported biomechanical ankle studies. 80,236,264,286 Recordings were obtained with a sample frequency of 1 Hz. Th e data that were acquired 30 s aft er the maximum load had been reached were used for data analysis.…”

“…367 Th e loads were applied to the tibia, as was done in previous studies. 253,264,323 Th e reallife situation might have been better imitated by also loading the fi bula, which transmits 7% of the total force through the lower leg. 157 However, loading the fi bula would probably not have had any notable eff ect on the results because the pressure distribution would have shift ed slightly to the lateral side, 389 with minor eff ects on the medially located implant.…”

Importance of Fixation of Posterior Malleolus Fracture in Trimalleolar Fractures: A Retrospective Study

“…[8,9] Furthermore, several authors have suggested that arthritis is triggered by change in stress distribution on the articular surface, which is caused by change in the articular surface area at the distal end of the tibia and talar dome after PMF. [2,6,10] Based on biomechanical, cadaveric, and small population studies, fragment size is frequently cited as one of the main indications for fixation with thresholds for surgery ranging from 25% to 33% of the anteroposterior (AP) dimension of the articular surface. [2,[10][11][12][13] However, thus far there has not been any strong clinical evidence and no consensus.…”

“…[2,6,10] Based on biomechanical, cadaveric, and small population studies, fragment size is frequently cited as one of the main indications for fixation with thresholds for surgery ranging from 25% to 33% of the anteroposterior (AP) dimension of the articular surface. [2,[10][11][12][13] However, thus far there has not been any strong clinical evidence and no consensus.…”