The relation between geometry and function of the ankle joint complex: a biomechanical review

Abstract

This review deals with the relation between the anatomy and function of the ankle joint complex. The questions addressed are how high do the forces in the ankle joint get, where can the joints go (range of motion) and where do they go during walking and running. Finally the role of the ligaments and the articular surfaces is discussed, i.e. how does it happen. The magnitude of the loads on the ankle joint complex are primarily determined by muscle activity and can be as high as four times the body weight during walking. For the maximal range of motion, plantar and dorsiflexion occurs in the talocrural joint and marginally at the subtalar joint. In-eversion takes place at both levels. The functional range of motion is well within the limits of the maximal range of motion. The ligaments do not contribute to the forces for the functional range of motion but determine the maximal range of motion together with the articular surfaces. The geometry of the articular surfaces primarily determines the kinematics. Clinical studies must include these anatomical aspects to better understand the mechanism of injury, recovery, and interventions. Models can elucidate the mechanism by which the anatomy relates to the function. The relation between the anatomy and mechanical properties of the joint structures and joint function should be considered for diagnosis and treatment of ankle joint pathology.

The jump shot – A biomechanical analysis focused on lateral ankle ligaments

“…The LFTA and the LFTP/LFC worked in an opposing state of dorsiflexion and plantarflexion, which is in agreement with other literature (Kleipool and Blankevoort, 2010;De Asla et al, 2009;Bahr et al, 1998;Nigg et al, 1990). The characteristics of the LFC during STJ motion were very sensible to the exact point of insertion: it was located close to an imaginary line, along which the plane, spanned by the axis of rotation of the STJ and the point of origin on the fibula, was piercing through the surface of the calcaneus.…”

“…This includes variation of the anatomy compared to the test person and influences calculation of forces and moments. However the results were in the physiological range (Kleipool and Blankevoort, 2010;De Asla et al, 2009;Bahr et al, 1998;Nigg et al, 1990). In the future individually adapted models are required for more accurate predictions.…”

“…1): ligamentum fibulotalare anterius (LFTA), ligamentum fibulotalare posterius (LFTP) and ligamentum fibulocalcaneare (LFC) were modelled using the muscle editor in SIMM. The origin and insertion of the ligaments, corresponding to bony structures and their orientation in space, were derived from publications (Golanó et al, 2010;Kleipool and Blankevoort, 2010;Valderrabano et al, 2009). Each ligaments' tendon slack length setting was based on the slack-taut transition according to Kleipool and Blankevoort (2010) ( Table 2).…”

“…The origin and insertion of the ligaments, corresponding to bony structures and their orientation in space, were derived from publications (Golanó et al, 2010;Kleipool and Blankevoort, 2010;Valderrabano et al, 2009). Each ligaments' tendon slack length setting was based on the slack-taut transition according to Kleipool and Blankevoort (2010) ( Table 2). Ligaments were modelled acting like so called ''passive muscles'', which means the fibres of zero length.…”

“…The STJ is considered to be one functional unit of multiple segments (articulatio subtalaris, articulatio talocalcaneonavicularis), allowing a rotary motion around this axis known as inversion and eversion. At the subtalar joint, inversion is coupled with plantarflexion, adduction and supination, and eversion is coupled with dorsiflexion, abduction and pronation (Kleipool and Blankevoort, 2010).…”