The value of Gissane's angle in the population of Central Serbia

Milan Kovačević; Ivona Banković; Milan Aksić; Jovan Rakić; Aleksandar Radunović; Maja Vulović

doi:10.2298/VSP201030015K

Milan Kovačević University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Medicine, Novi Sad, Serbia
Ivona Banković University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Medicine, Novi Sad, Serbia
Milan Aksić University of Belgrade, Faculty of Medicine, Institute of Anatomy, Belgrade, Serbia
Jovan Rakić University of Kragujevac, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Kragujevac, Serbia
Aleksandar Radunović Military Medical Academy, Clinic for Orthopedic Surgery, Belgrade, Serbia
Maja Vulović University of Kragujevac, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Kragujevac, Serbia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2298/VSP201030015K

Keywords: anthropometry, calcaneus, fractures, bone, heel, radiography, sex factors, serbia

Abstract

Background/Aim. Determining the value of Gissane’s angle (GA) plays a role in the diagnosis and prognosis of heel fractures, determining treatment methods, and assessing the outcome of surgical treatment. Normal values of the GA vary in relation to ethnicity, age, and gender of the examined group, which indicates its anthropometric significance. The aim of this study was to determine the range of normal GA values in the population of Central Serbia. Methods. GA was determined on lateral radiography of the foot of 145 subjects of both sexes (67 women and 78 men), with subjects divided into 6 age groups. The patients included in the study did not have a calcaneus fracture. The obtained results were processed in the Graph Pad program. Results. The average value of GA in Central Serbia was 110.8° ± 8.1°, ranging from 93° to 132.9°. The mean value of GA decreased with age, and no difference was observed between women and men, except in the youngest age group, where women had higher GA values than men. Conclusion. The results of the study showed a wide range of normal GA values, as well as the existence of a difference in subjects of different ages and sex.

References

Daftary A, Haims AH, Baumgaertner MR. Fractures of the cal-caneus: a review with emphasis on CT. Radiographics 2005; 25(5): 1215‒26.

Linsenmaier U, Brunner U, Schöning A, Rieger J, Krötz M, Mutsch-ler W, et al. Classification of calcaneal fractures by spiral com-puted tomography: implications for surgical treatment. Eur Radiol 2003; 13(10): 2315–22.

Sengodan VC, Amruth KH, Karthikeyan S. Bohler's and Gissane Angles in the Indian Population. J Clin Imaging Sci 2012; 2: 77.

Amuti T, Muuthuri N, Nichome L, Ouko I, Misiani M, Olabu B, et al. Morphometric Dimensions of the Calcaneus. J Foot An-kle Surg 2020; 59(5): 949‒52.

Khoshhal KI, Ibrahim AF, Al-Nakshabandi NA, Zamzam MM, Al-Boukai AA, Zamzami MM. Böhler's and Gissane's angles of the calcaneus in the Saudi population. Saudi Med J 2004; 25(12): 1967‒70.

Palmersheim K, Hines B, Olsen BL. Calcaneal fractures: update on current treatments. Clin Podiatr Med Surg 2012; 29(2): 205‒20, vii.

Agoada D. The relationship between linear osteological and ra-diographic measurements of the human calcaneus and ta-lus. Anat Rec 2017; 301(1): 21‒33.

Ramachandran R, Shetty S. Assessment of Bohler's and Gissane's angles of the calcaneum in a group of South Indian popula-tion-a radiological study. Int J Cur Res Rev 2015; 7(15): 17‒20.

Guo J, Wang S, Chen J, Li H. Calcaneus Radiograph Analysis System: Calcaneal Angles Measurement and Fracture Identifi-cation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.04536.2019, December 10 [cited on 2020 September 1] Available from: https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.04536

Gissane W. Discussion on “Fractures of the os calcis”. Proceedings of the British Orthopaedic Association. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1947; 29: 254‒5.

da Silva Louro EC, Faleiro TB, Pereira, TM, de Souza Ferreira LD, Rezende RG, Andrade TA. Radiographic study of Böhler and Gissane angles in the Brazilian population. J Foot Ankle. 2020; 14(1): 57‒61.

Shoukry FA, Aref YK, Sabry AAE. Evaluation of the normal calcaneal angles in Egyptian population. Alex J Med 2012; 48(2): 91‒7.

Seyahi A, Uludağ S, Koyuncu LO, Atalar AC, Demirhan M. The calcaneal angles in the Turkish population. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 2009; 43(5): 406‒11. (Turkish)

Kim JH, Gwak HC, Kim JG, Jung, YH. Measurement of normal calcaneus in Korean cadavers: a preliminary report. J Korean Foot Ankle Soc 2018; 18(1): 14‒8.

Schmutz B, Lüthi, M, Schmutz-Leong YK, Shulman R, Platt S. Morphological analysis of Gissane’s angle utilising a statistical shape model of the calcaneus. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2020; doi: 10.1007/s00402-020-03566-5. (In Press)

Barinem G, Udoaka AI. Radiological evaluation of the calcane-al parameters in an adult Nigerian population. J Med Sci Clin Res 2015; 3(8): 7112‒7.

Alabi AS, Mohammed BE, Lewu SF, Neku RO, Kareem, BS, Oyewopo OA, et al. Radiological assessment of the calcaneal an-gles of Kwara populace: A retrospective study. Int J Health Allied Sci 2020; 9(1): 29.

Pombo B, Ferreira AC, Costa L. Bohler Angle and the Crucial Angle of Gissane in Paediatric Population. Clin Med Insights Arthritis Musculoskelet Disord 2019; 12: 1179544119835227.

Davis D, Seaman TJ, Newton EJ. Calcaneus Frac-tures. StatPearls [Internet]. 2020, August 8 [cited on 2020 September 5]. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK430861/

Pradhan CS, Gupta TSK, Mohanty A, Panigrahi SA. Comparative study on outcome of maintaining Bohler angle and Gissane angle in the treatment of calcaneum fracture: A retrospective analysis. Nat J Clin Orthop 2019; 3(3): 90‒5.