Talk:Ankle

eMedicine spam
Came here to find out why my foot hurt, was fed spam instead. Removing it Cosmo7 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC).
 * Whatever do you mean, specificically--what did you remove?? I came here because a bone was out of joint and my chiropractor pulled and it went back in, properly. I'll read the article further because I have a lot to learn. And I have some insight that may be appropriate to discuss here on TALK, properly documented (of course). -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Cankles
Does the "Name Derivation" section really need to be in here? Areynol2 04:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

i llike it. shows pop culture, useful and interesting 24.16.15.150 08:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's barely encyclopedic, and I've trimmed the unreferenced parts. -- Mikeblas 03:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think mention of cankle or thankle is appropriate for a scholarly article. 70.112.111.214 (talk) 00:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

sexy ankles
i have heard that ankles were considered sexy and not shown in victorian fashion. that should be listed here, maybe with a theory on why the lusted after, i figure it has something to do with the above mentioned 'cankle' 24.16.15.150 08:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC) Yes, in the victorian era was ankels sexy.Håbet 05:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Depends who you ask (as with all things "sexy"). May not just be in the Victorian era... BirdbrainedPhoenix (talk) 17:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Content
I'm surprised this article is so weak. There's nothing about injury, and the movement section is very much incomplete. I hope that an expert on the subject can add some well-referenced information. -- Mikeblas 03:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I have been unable to find any further information on the "Kiep Ankle Disorder" that is mentioned in this article (apart from on websites that have taken the content directly from here), and no references are attached to this. Does this study actually exist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.34.169.29 (talk) 22:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, there is no such thing as Kiep Ankle Disorder. Not listed anywhere in my Clinical Anatomy... --153.19.229.72 (talk) 23:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Error in the Picture
The Picture has both fibula and tibula pointing to the same bone. This is confusing! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.78.102.186 (talk) 09:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

The Achilles tendon is misspelled —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.200.168.35 (talk) 07:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The Achilles tendon is still misspelled in the image. It appears as anchillies. Perique des Palottes (talk) 11:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, the fibula was missing and the achilles tendon misspelled. I've uploaded a hopefully corrected version now. Please point out any errors still present. Mikael Häggström (talk) 09:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Presumably "Anterior inferior tibiofobular ligament" should be corrected to "tibiofibular"?--86.172.138.32 (talk) 07:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

New ligament discover
In Spanish discover, named complejo ligamentoso fibulotalocalcalcáneo lateral (University of Barcelona: Faculty of medicine and information sciences); source (journalism): El español (periódico digital) (Pedro J. Ramírez); calendar date: 03/11/2018. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.38.233.173 (talk) 16:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input. The lateral fibulotalocalcaneal ligament complex (LFTCL) is a new description. Wikipedia avoids using primary studies, waiting to see if they are incorporated into the standard literature for the appropriate fields (anatomy, radiology, orthopedics, etc.). If the description gains acceptance, the article should be updated the current accepted terminology. BiologicalMe (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2018 (UTC)


 * For the record, aside the Springer-link about the LFTCL which you indicated, which is also in PubMed by now:
 * and also ScienceDaily has written a brief report about this.
 * While this may well be a mere coincidental similarity in wording, similar terminology has been used in this earlier article (2009) concerning a "fibulotalocalcaneal ligament", and that article does not seem to have been cited anywhere so far according to PubMed:
 * Let's wait and see whether any of this gains acceptance. --Chris Howard (talk) 14:10, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * P.S.: Actually, concerning the "fibulotalocalcaneal ligament" (which would be a red link in Wikipedia), this ligament seems to have been discovered in 1932 that was picked up later by the Amsterdam Ankle School of Niek van Dijk: "During resection of the periarticular fatty tissue, fascial fibres that have a transverse coure and a consistent appearance can easily be recognized (Golanó et al. 2006a, b). These fibers are part of the deep crural fascia that, because of its constant movement, is considerably thickened at the level of the ankle joint. In 1932, Rouvière and Canela-Lázaro gave this structure the name fibulotalocalcaneal ligament (Rouvière and Canela-Lázaro 1932 Figs. 3.17 and 3.18)." The ligament is also shown in Fig. 13.3 on p. 235 of that book. Furthermore, another article states: "The fibulotalocalcaneal ligament of Rouvière and Canela Lazaro (Figs. 4.23, 4.24, and 4.25) is an extrinsic ligament that occupies the posterolateral corner of the ankle and posterior subtalar joints." (Shahan K. Sarrafian, Armen S. Kelikian: Syndesmology; similarly also: ). In fact, van Dijk et al says in an an obituary about a colleague, Pau Golanó, (In memoriam Pau Golanó (1965–2014), Springer, 2014) that "One of his contributions to world literature is the rediscovery of the forgotten Rouvière-Canela ligament." --Chris Howard (talk) 06:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Good research. As far as I can tell, the article at the start of this discussion is not really a "new discovery" but a systematic examination to determine if a known structure was divided uniformly or variably. It looks like a university press release overhyped the study (hardly the first time). I'll probably try to review ligaments using Gray's and a good review article:  . Since several authors on the review are responsible for the new article, nomenclature (often a challenge) should be consistent. BiologicalMe (talk) 18:06, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * P.S.: Actually, concerning the "fibulotalocalcaneal ligament" (which would be a red link in Wikipedia), this ligament seems to have been discovered in 1932 that was picked up later by the Amsterdam Ankle School of Niek van Dijk: "During resection of the periarticular fatty tissue, fascial fibres that have a transverse coure and a consistent appearance can easily be recognized (Golanó et al. 2006a, b). These fibers are part of the deep crural fascia that, because of its constant movement, is considerably thickened at the level of the ankle joint. In 1932, Rouvière and Canela-Lázaro gave this structure the name fibulotalocalcaneal ligament (Rouvière and Canela-Lázaro 1932 Figs. 3.17 and 3.18)." The ligament is also shown in Fig. 13.3 on p. 235 of that book. Furthermore, another article states: "The fibulotalocalcaneal ligament of Rouvière and Canela Lazaro (Figs. 4.23, 4.24, and 4.25) is an extrinsic ligament that occupies the posterolateral corner of the ankle and posterior subtalar joints." (Shahan K. Sarrafian, Armen S. Kelikian: Syndesmology; similarly also: ). In fact, van Dijk et al says in an an obituary about a colleague, Pau Golanó, (In memoriam Pau Golanó (1965–2014), Springer, 2014) that "One of his contributions to world literature is the rediscovery of the forgotten Rouvière-Canela ligament." --Chris Howard (talk) 06:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Good research. As far as I can tell, the article at the start of this discussion is not really a "new discovery" but a systematic examination to determine if a known structure was divided uniformly or variably. It looks like a university press release overhyped the study (hardly the first time). I'll probably try to review ligaments using Gray's and a good review article:  . Since several authors on the review are responsible for the new article, nomenclature (often a challenge) should be consistent. BiologicalMe (talk) 18:06, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Lead; Lacking in detail perhaps?
It doesn't say what the ankle bone is connected to. Why not? -Roxy the dog . wooF 16:33, 3 December 2021 (UTC)