Al adjuvants can be tracked in viable cells by lumogallion

Article English OPEN
Mold, MJ (2015)

Variations in foot posture are associated with the development of some lower limb injuries. However, the mechanisms underlying this relationship are unclear. The objective of this study was to compare foot kinematics between normal, pes cavus and pes planus foot posture groups using a multi-segment foot model. Ninety-seven healthy adults, aged 18-47 were classified as either normal (n=37), pes cavus (n=30) or pes planus (n=30) based on normative data for the Foot Posture Index, Arch Index and normalised navicular height. A five segment foot model was used to measure tri-planar motion of the rearfoot, midfoot, medial forefoot, lateral forefoot and hallux during barefoot walking at a self-selected speed. Angle at heel contact, peak angle, time to peak angle and range of motion was measured for each segment. One way ANOVAs with post hoc analyses of mean differences were used to compare foot posture groups. The pes cavus group demonstrated a distinctive pattern of motion compared to the normal and pes planus foot posture groups. Effect sizes of significant mean differences were large and comparable to similar studies. Three key differences in overall foot function were observed between the groups: (i) altered frontal and transverse plane angles of the rearfoot in the pes cavus foot; (ii) less midfoot motion in the pes cavus foot during initial contact and midstance; and (iii) reduced midfoot frontal plane ROM in the pes planus foot during pre-swing. These findings indicate that foot posture does influence motion of the foot.
  • References (32)
    32 references, page 1 of 4

    [1] Yates B, White S. The incidence and risk factors in the development of medial tibial stress syndrome among naval recruits. Am J Sports Med 2004;32:772- 80.

    [2] Burns J, Keenan A-M, Redmond A. Foot type and overuse injury in triathletes. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 2005;95:235-41.

    [3] Cobb SC, Tis LL, Johnson JT, Wang YT, Geil MD, McCarty FA. The effect of lowmobile foot posture on multi-segment medial foot model gait kinematics. Gait Posture 2009;30:334-9.

    [4] Nigg BM, Cole GK, Nachbauer W. Effects of arch height of the foot on angular motion of the lower extremities in running. J Biomech 1993;26:909-16.

    [5] Barnes A, Wheat J, Milner C. Association between foot type and tibial stress injuries: a systematic review. Br J Sports Med 2008;42:93-8.

    [6] Williams DS, McClay IS, Hamill J, Buchanan TS. Lower extremity kinematic and kinetic differences in runners with high and low arches. J Appl Biomech 2001;17:153-63.

    [7] Burns J, Crosbie J, Hunt A, Ouvrier R. The effect of pes cavus on foot pain and plantar pressure. Clin Biomech (Bristol Avon) 2005;20:877-82.

    [8] Hunt AE, Smith RM. Mechanics and control of the flat versus normal foot during the stance phase of walking. Clin Biomech (Bristol Avon) 2004;19:391-7.

    [9] Murley GS, Menz HB, Landorf KB. Foot posture influences the electromyographic activity of selected lower limb muscles during gait. J Foot Ankle Res 2009;2:35.

    [10] Buldt AK, Murley GS, Butterworth P, Levinger P, Menz HB, Landorf KB. The relationship between foot posture and lower limb kinematics during walking: A systematic review. Gait Posture 2013;38:363-72.

  • Metrics
    No metrics available
Share - Bookmark