Aims. The Chopart joint complex is a joint between the midfoot and hindfoot. The static and dynamic support system of the joint is critical for maintaining the medial longitudinal arch of the foot. Any dysfunction leads to progressive collapsing flatfoot deformity (PCFD). Often, the tibialis posterior is the primary cause; however, contrary views have also been expressed. The present investigation intends to explore the comprehensive anatomy of the support system of the Chopart joint complex to gain insight into the cause of PCFD. Methods. The study was conducted on 40 adult embalmed cadaveric lower limbs. Chopart joint complexes were dissected, and the structures supporting the joint inferiorly were observed and noted. Results. The articulating bones exhibit features like a cuboid shelf and navicular beak, which appear to offer inferior support to the joint. The expanse of the spring ligament complex is more medial than inferior, while the superomedial part is more extensive than the intermediate and inferoplantar parts. The spring ligament is reinforced by the tendons in the superomedial part (the main tendon of tibialis posterior), the inferomedial part (the plantar slip of tibialis posterior), and the master knot of Henry positioned just inferior to the gap between the inferomedial and inferoplantar bundles. Conclusion. This study highlights that the medial aspect of the talonavicular articulation has more extensive reinforcement in the form of superomedial part of spring ligament and tibialis posterior tendon. The findings are expected to prompt further research in weightbearing settings on the pathogenesis of flatfoot. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(4):335–342

Objective. The objective of this study was to evaluate the rotation and translation of each joint in the hindfoot and compare the load response in healthy feet with that in stage II posterior tibial tendon dysfunction (PTTD) flatfoot by analysing the reconstructive three-dimensional (3D) computed tomography (CT) image data during simulated weight-bearing. . Methods. CT scans of 15 healthy feet and 15 feet with stage II PTTD flatfoot were taken first in a non-weight-bearing condition, followed by a simulated full-body weight-bearing condition. The images of the hindfoot bones were reconstructed into 3D models. The ‘twice registration’ method in three planes was used to calculate the position of the talus relative to the calcaneus in the talocalcaneal joint, the navicular relative to the talus in talonavicular joint, and the cuboid relative to the calcaneus in the calcaneocuboid joint. Results. From non- to full-body-weight-bearing condition, the difference in the talus position relative to the calcaneus in the talocalcaneal joint was 0.6° more dorsiflexed (p = 0.032), 1.4° more everted (p = 0.026), 0.9 mm more anterior (p = 0.031) and 1.0 mm more proximal (p = 0.004) in stage II PTTD flatfoot compared with that in a healthy foot. The navicular position difference relative to the talus in the talonavicular joint was 3° more everted (p = 0.012), 1.3 mm more lateral (p = 0.024), 0.8 mm more anterior (p = 0.037) and 2.1 mm more proximal (p = 0.017). The cuboid position difference relative to the calcaneus in the calcaneocuboid joint did not change significantly in rotation and translation (all p ≥ 0.08). . Conclusion. Referring to a previous study regarding both the cadaveric foot and the live foot, joint instability occurred in the hindfoot in simulated weight-bearing condition in patients with stage II PTTD flatfoot. The method used in this study might be applied to clinical analysis of the aetiology and evolution of PTTD flatfoot, and may inform biomechanical analyses of the effects of foot surgery in the future. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2013;2:255–63