Journal of Biomedical Physics and Engineering

Current Issue

By Issue

By Author

By Subject

Author Index

Keyword Index

About Journal

Aims and Scope

Staff Members

Editorial Board

Publication Ethics

Indexing and Abstracting

Related Links

FAQ

Peer Review Process

News

A comparison of the free moment pattern between normal and hyper-pronated aligned feet in female subjects during the stance phase of gait

Document Type : Original Research

Authors

PhD, Rehabilitation Sciences Research Centre, Department of Physical Therapy, School of Rehabilitation Sc ences, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

Abstract

Background: Excessive range of adductory free moment of the ground reaction force may potentially increase the risk of lower extremity injuries by applying a higher torsional load transmitted to the proximal parts.
Objective: It was hypothesized that the free moment pattern might be different between hyper-pronated and normal feet subjects. Moreover, a correlation would exist between peak adduction free moment and peak ankle-foot complex abduction at the stance phase of walking.
Material and Methods: In this cross sectional study, thirty female participants were divided into two groups of asymptomatic hyper-pronated and normal feet. Kinetic and kinematic data were collected using a single force plate and a six-camera motion analysis system during three successful free speed walking trials. Ensemble average curves were extracted from the time normalized individual trials of the stance phase for both free moment and peak ankle-foot complex abduction parameters.
Results: Significant differences in peak adductory free moment, peak ankle-foot complex eversion and peak ankle-foot complex abduction were found between normal and hyper-pronated groups (4.90±0.97 Vs. 5.94±0.88, P < 0.01), (3.30±0.95 Vs. 6.28±1.47, P < 0.01) and (4.52±1.16 Vs. 8.23±2.52, P < 0.01) respectively. A significant positive correlation was found between the peak adduction free moment and peak ankle-foot complex abduction in both groups, which was more strongly positive in hyper-pronated group (r = 0.745, p < 0.01 for normal group and r = 0.900, p < 0.01 for hyper-pronated group).
Conclusion: As a good measure of torque which is transmitted to the lower extremity, may free moment be a useful biomechanical indicator for both clinical and research purposes.

Keywords

References
  1. Wang WJ, Crompton RH. Analysis of the human and ape foot during bipedal standing with implications for the evolution of the foot. J Biomech. 2004;37:1831-6. doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2004.02.036. PubMed PMID: 15519591.
  2. Shariatmadari M, English R, Rothwell G. RETRACTED: A review of developments into therapeutic running footwear research. Procedia Engineering. 2010;2:2811-6. doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2010.04.071.
  3. Close JR, Inman VT, Poor PM, Todd FN. The function of the subtalar joint. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1967;50:159-79. doi.org/10.1097/00003086-196701000-00016. PubMed PMID: 6029014.
  4. Karatsolis K, Nikolopoulos CS, Papadopoulos ES, Vagenas G, Terzis E, Athanasopoulos S. Eversion and inversion muscle group peak torque in hyperpronated and normal individuals. Foot (Edinb). 2009;19:29-35. doi.org/10.1016/j.foot.2008.06.006. PubMed PMID: 20307446.
  5. Pohl MB, Messenger N, Buckley JG. Forefoot, rearfoot and shank coupling: effect of variations in speed and mode of gait. Gait Posture. 2007;25:295-302. doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2006.04.012. PubMed PMID: 16759862.
  6. Duval K, Lam T, Sanderson D. The mechanical relationship between the rearfoot, pelvis and low-back. Gait Posture. 2010;32:637-40. doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2010.09.007. PubMed PMID: 20889344.
  7. DeLeo AT, Dierks TA, Ferber R, Davis IS. Lower extremity joint coupling during running: a current update. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2004;19:983-91. doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2004.07.005. PubMed PMID: 15531047.
  8. Donatelli RA, Hurlburt C, Conaway D, St Pierre R. Biomechanical foot orthotics: a retrospective study. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1988;10:205-12. doi.org/10.2519/jospt.1988.10.6.205. PubMed PMID: 18796957.
  9. Haight HJ, Dahm DL, Smith J, Krause DA. Measuring standing hindfoot alignment: reliability of goniometric and visual measurements. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;86:571-5. doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2004.05.014. PubMed PMID: 15759246.
  10. Dunn JE, Link CL, Felson DT, Crincoli MG, Keysor JJ, McKinlay JB. Prevalence of foot and ankle conditions in a multiethnic community sample of older adults. Am J Epidemiol. 2004;159:491-8. doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwh071. PubMed PMID: 14977645.
  11. Shibuya N, Jupiter DC, Ciliberti LJ, VanBuren V, La Fontaine J. Characteristics of adult flatfoot in the United States. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2010;49:363-8. doi.org/10.1053/j.jfas.2010.04.001. PubMed PMID: 20537928.
  12. Tiberio D. Pathomechanics of structural foot deformities. Phys Ther. 1988;68:1840-9. doi.org/10.1093/ptj/68.12.1840. PubMed PMID: 3194451.
  13. Cornwall MW, McPoil TG. Footwear and foot orthotic effectiveness research: a new approach. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1995;21:337-44. doi.org/10.2519/jospt.1995.21.6.337. PubMed PMID: 7655477.
  14. Klingman RE, Liaos SM, Hardin KM. The effect of subtalar joint posting on patellar glide position in subjects with excessive rearfoot pronation. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1997;25:185-91. doi.org/10.2519/jospt.1997.25.3.185. PubMed PMID: 9048324.
  15. Stergiou N, Bates BT, James SL. Asynchrony between subtalar and knee joint function during running. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1999;31:1645-55. doi.org/10.1097/00005768-199911000-00023. PubMed PMID: 10589870.
  16. Tiberio D. The effect of excessive subtalar joint pronation on patellofemoral mechanics: a theoretical model. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1987;9:160-5. doi.org/10.2519/jospt.1987.9.4.160. PubMed PMID: 18797010.
  17. Cobb SC, Tis LL, Johnson JT, Wang YT, Geil MD, McCarty FA. The effect of low-mobile foot posture on multi-segment medial foot model gait kinematics. Gait Posture. 2009;30:334-9. doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2009.06.005. PubMed PMID: 19615908.
  18. 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. doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2007.09.008. PubMed PMID: 17988870.
  19. 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. doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2003.12.010. PubMed PMID: 15109760.
  20. Murley GS, Landorf KB, Menz HB, Bird AR. Effect of foot posture, foot orthoses and footwear on lower limb muscle activity during walking and running: a systematic review. Gait Posture. 2009;29:172-87. doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2008.08.015. PubMed PMID: 18922696.
  21. Barton CJ, Levinger P, Crossley KM, Webster KE, Menz HB. Relationships between the Foot Posture Index and foot kinematics during gait in individuals with and without patellofemoral pain syndrome. J Foot Ankle Res. 2011;4:10. doi.org/10.1186/1757-1146-4-10. PubMed PMID: 21401957. PubMed PMCID: 3064639.
  22. Chuter VH. Relationships between foot type and dynamic rearfoot frontal plane motion. Journal of Foot and Ankle Research. 2010;3:9. doi.org/10.1186/1757-1146-3-9.
  23. Hunt AE, Fahey AJ, Smith RM. Static measures of calcaneal deviation and arch angle as predictors of rearfoot motion during walking. Aust J Physiother. 2000;46:9-16. doi.org/10.1016/S0004-9514(14)60309-3. PubMed PMID: 11676785.
  24. 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. doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2010.07.013. PubMed PMID: 20696579.
  25. Reischl SF, Powers CM, Rao S, Perry J. Relationship between foot pronation and rotation of the tibia and femur during walking. Foot Ankle Int. 1999;20:513-20. doi.org/10.1177/107110079902000809. PubMed PMID: 10473063.
  26. Bates B, Osternig L, Mason B, James S. Lower extremity function during the support phase of running. Biomechanics VI-b. 1978:30-9.
  27. Cavanagh P, Clarke T, Williams K, Kalenak A, editors. An evaluation of the effect of orthotics on force distribution and rearfoot movement during running. American Orthopaedics Society Sports Medicine Meeting; Lake Placid, New York; 1978.
  28. Clarke T, Lafortune M, Williams K, Cavanagh P, editors. The relationship between center of pressure location and rear-foot movement in distance running. Medicine And Science In Sports And Exercise; West Camden: Williams & Wilkins; 1980.
  29. Hamill J, Bates B, White C, editors. Evaluation of foot orthotic appliances using ground reaction force data. Locomotion II. Proceedings of the Second Biannual Conference of the Canadian Society for Biomechanics; Biomech, Kingston, Ontario: Canadian Society for Biomechanics;1982.
  30. Miller MD, Hinkin DT, Wisnowski JW. The efficacy of orthotics for anterior knee pain in military trainees. A preliminary report. Am J Knee Surg. 1997;10:10-3. PubMed PMID: 9051172.
  31. Milner CE, Davis IS, Hamill J. Free moment as a predictor of tibial stress fracture in distance runners. J Biomech. 2006;39:2819-25. doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2005.09.022. PubMed PMID: 16289078.
  32. Holden JP, Cavanagh PR. The free moment of ground reaction in distance running and its changes with pronation. J Biomech. 1991;24:887-97. doi.org/10.1016/0021-9290(91)90167-L. PubMed PMID: 1744147.
  33. Smith-Oricchio K, Harris BA. Interrater reliability of subtalar neutral, calcaneal inversion and eversion. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1990;12:10-5. doi.org/10.2519/jospt.1990.12.1.10. PubMed PMID: 18796888.
  34. Song J, Hillstrom HJ, Secord D, Levitt J. Foot type biomechanics. comparison of planus and rectus foot types. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 1996;86:16-23. doi.org/10.7547/87507315-86-1-16. PubMed PMID: 8808320.
  35. Razeghi M, Batt ME. Foot type classification: a critical review of current methods. Gait Posture. 2002;15:282-91. doi.org/10.1016/S0966-6362(01)00151-5. PubMed PMID: 11983503.
  36. Feiss HO. A simple method of estimating the common variations and deformities of the foot. The American Journal of the Medical Sciences. 1909;138:213-30. doi.org/10.1097/00000441-190908000-00009.
  37. Hannigan-Downs K, Harter R, Smith G. Radiographic validation and reliability of selected clinical measures of pronation. J Ath Tr. 2000;35:12-30.
  38. Sporndly-Nees S, Dasberg B, Nielsen RO, Boesen MI, Langberg H. The navicular position test-a reliable measure of the navicular bone position during rest and loading. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2011;6:199-205. PubMed PMID: 21904698. PubMed PMCID: 3163999.
  39. Cappozzo A, Catani F, Croce UD, Leardini A. Position and orientation in space of bones during movement: anatomical frame definition and determination. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 1995;10:171-8. doi.org/10.1016/0268-0033(95)91394-T. PubMed PMID: 11415549.
  40. Wilken JM, Rodriguez KM, Brawner M, Darter BJ. Reliability and Minimal Detectible Change values for gait kinematics and kinetics in healthy adults. Gait Posture. 2012;35:301-7. doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2011.09.105. PubMed PMID: 22041096.
  41. Khan WS, Jones RK, Nokes L, Johnson DS. The relationship of the angle of immobilisation of the knee to the force applied to the extensor mechanism when partially weight-bearing. A gait-analysis study in normal volunteers. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89:911-4. doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.89B7.18452. PubMed PMID: 17673584.
  42. Nilsson J, Thorstensson A, Halbertsma J. Changes in leg movements and muscle activity with speed of locomotion and mode of progression in humans. Acta Physiol Scand. 1985;123:457-75. doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-1716.1985.tb07612.x. PubMed PMID: 3993402.
  43. Tateuchi H, Wada O, Ichihashi N. Effects of calcaneal eversion on three-dimensional kinematics of the hip, pelvis and thorax in unilateral weight bearing. Hum Mov Sci. 2011;30:566-73. doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2010.11.011. PubMed PMID: 21459469.
  44. Lafortune MA, Cavanagh PR, Sommer 3rd HJ, Kalenak A. Foot inversion-eversion and knee kinematics during walking. J Orthop Res. 1994;12:412-20. doi.org/10.1002/jor.1100120314. PubMed PMID: 8207595.
  45. Chang R, Van Emmerik R, Hamill J. Quantifying rearfoot-forefoot coordination in human walking. J Biomech. 2008;41:3101-5. doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2008.07.024. PubMed PMID: 18778823.
  46. Pohl MB, Buckley JG. Changes in foot and shank coupling due to alterations in foot strike pattern during running. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2008;23:334-41. doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2007.09.016. PubMed PMID: 18006125.
  47. Eslami M, Begon M, Farahpour N, Allard P. Forefoot-rearfoot coupling patterns and tibial internal rotation during stance phase of barefoot versus shod running. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2007;22:74-80. doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2006.08.002. PubMed PMID: 17049700.
  48. Souza TR, Pinto RZ, Trede RG, Kirkwood RN, Fonseca ST. Temporal couplings between rearfoot-shank complex and hip joint during walking. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2010;25:745-8. doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2010.04.012. PubMed PMID: 20621756.
  49. 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. doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2013.01.010. PubMed PMID: 23391750.
  50. Baumann W. On mechanical loads on the human body during sports activities. Biomechanics VII-B. 1981:79-87.
  51. Brubaker CE, James SL. Injuries to runners. J Sports Med. 1974;2:189-98. doi.org/10.1177/036354657400200402. PubMed PMID: 4468337.
Journal of Biomedical Physics and Engineering
Volume 10, Issue 1
37
January and February 2020
Pages 93-102
Files
Share
How to cite
Statistics