LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Buldt, AK; Levinger, P; Murley, GS; Menz, HB; Nester, CJ; Landorf, KB (2015)
Publisher: Elsevier
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: QD, RA

Classified by OpenAIRE into

mesheuropmc: body regions, human activities
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.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • [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.
    • [11] Nester CJ, Liu AM, Ward E, Howard D, Cocheba J, Derrick T. Error in the description of foot kinematics due to violation of rigid body assumptions. J Biomech 2010;43:666-72.
    • [12] Redmond AC, Crane YZ, Menz HB. Normative values for the Foot Posture Index. J Foot Ankle Res 2008;1:6.
    • [13] Cavanagh PR, Rodgers MM. The arch index: a useful measure from footprints. J Biomech 1987;20:547-51.
    • [14] Cowan DN, Jones BH, Robinson JR. Foot morphologic characteristics and risk of exercise-related injury. Arch Fam Med 1993;2:773-7.
    • [15] Murley GS, Menz HB, Landorf KB. A protocol for classifying normal- and flatarched foot posture for research studies using clinical and radiographic measurements. J Foot Ankle Res 2009;2:22.
    • [16] Nester C, Jones R, Liu A, Howard D, Lundberg A, Arndt A, et al. Foot kinematics during walking measured using bone and surface mounted markers. J Biomech 2007;40:3412-23.
    • [17] Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS, Osterlind SJ. Using multivariate statistics. In: Needham heights. MA: Allyn & Bacon; 2001.
    • [18] Lundgren P, Nester C, Liu A, Arndt A, Jones R, Stacoff A, et al. Invasive in vivo measurement of rear-, mid- and forefoot motion during walking. Gait Posture 2008;28:93-100.
    • [19] McPoil TG, Hunt GC. Evaluation and management of foot and ankle disorders: present problems and future directions. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1995;21:381-8.
    • [20] Menz HB. Clinical hindfoot measurement: a critical review of the literature. Foot 1995;5:57-64.
    • [21] Houck JR, Tome JM, Nawoczenski DA. Subtalar neutral position as an offset for a kinematic model of the foot during walking. Gait Posture 2008;28:29-37.
    • [22] Findlow AH, Nester CJ, Bowker P. Foot kinematics in patients with two patterns of pathological plantar hyperkeratosis. J Foot Ankle Res 2011;4:7.
    • [23] Powell DW, Long B, Milner CE, Zhang S. Frontal plane multi-segment foot kinematics in high- and low-arched females during dynamic loading tasks. Hum Mov Sci 2011;30:105-14.
    • [24] Hunt AE, Smith RM, Torode M. Extrinsic muscle activity, foot motion and ankle joint moments during the stance phase of walking. Foot Ankle Int 2001;22:31-41.
    • [25] Hillstrom HJ, Song J, Kraszewski AP, Hafer JF, Mootanah R, Dufour AB, et al. Foot type biomechanics part 1: structure and function of the asymptomatic foot. Gait Posture 2013;37:445-51.
    • [26] Levinger P, Murley GS, Barton CJ, Cotchett MP, McSweeney SR, Menz HB. A comparison of foot kinematics in people with normal- and flat-arched feet using the Oxford foot model. Gait Posture 2010;32:519-23.
    • [27] Levinger P, Menz HB, Fotoohabadi MR, Feller JA, Bartlett JR, Bergman NR. Foot posture in people with medial compartment knee osteoarthritis. J Foot Ankle Res 2010;3:29.
    • [28] Milner CE, Ferber R, Pollard CD, Hamill J, Davis IS. Biomechanical factors associated with tibial stress fracture in female runners. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2006;38:323-8.
    • [29] Elftman H. The transverse tarsal joint and its control. Clin Orthop 1960;16:41-6.
    • [30] Bojsen-Møller F. Calcaneocuboid joint and stability of the longitudinal arch of the foot at high and low gear push off. J Anat 1979;129:165-76.
    • [31] Fuller EA. The windlass mechanism of the foot. A mechanical model to explain pathology. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 2000;90:35-46.
    • [32] Hopkins WG. A new view of statistics, http://newstatsi.org [accessed 30.01.15].
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Funded by projects

Cite this article