Literature DB >> 15778468

Use of the longitudinal arch angle to predict dynamic foot posture in walking.

Thomas G McPoil1, Mark W Cornwall.   

Abstract

To determine whether differences exist in the longitudinal arch angle based on sex or extremity, the longitudinal arch angle was assessed in 21 men and 21 women using a digital image of the medial aspect of each subject's feet. The image was obtained with the subject in relaxed standing posture and in maximum internal rotation of the lower leg. To determine whether the longitudinal arch angle could be used to predict dynamic foot posture during walking, 50 different subjects were asked to walk across a 6-m walkway while the medial aspect of each foot was videotaped. The longitudinal arch angle was digitized from digital images obtained at midstance for three walking trials. No differences in the longitudinal arch angle were found based on sex or extremity. The longitudinal arch angles obtained in the static positions of relaxed standing posture and maximum internal rotation were highly predictive of dynamic foot posture at midstance during walking. Relaxed standing posture and maximum internal rotation significantly contributed to explaining more than 90% of the variance associated with the longitudinal arch angle position at midstance during walking. These results validate use of the longitudinal arch angle as part of the foot and ankle physical examination.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15778468     DOI: 10.7547/0950114

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Podiatr Med Assoc        ISSN: 1930-8264


  11 in total

1.  The navicular position test - a reliable measure of the navicular bone position during rest and loading.

Authors:  Søren Spörndly-Nees; Brian Dåsberg; Rasmus Oestergaard Nielsen; Morten Ilum Boesen; Henning Langberg
Journal:  Int J Sports Phys Ther       Date:  2011-09

2.  Force-generating capacity of the toe flexor muscles and dynamic function of the foot arch in upright standing.

Authors:  Junichiro Yamauchi; Keiji Koyama
Journal:  J Anat       Date:  2019-02-01       Impact factor: 2.610

3.  THE USE OF A STATIC MEASURE TO PREDICT FOOT POSTURE AT MIDSUPPORT DURING RUNNING.

Authors:  Michael B Bade; Timothy L Chi; Kelly C Farrell; Amanda J Gresl; Laura J Hammel; Bradley N Koster; Ashley B Leatzow; Emily C Thomas; Thomas G McPoil
Journal:  Int J Sports Phys Ther       Date:  2016-02

4.  Classification of the height and flexibility of the medial longitudinal arch of the foot.

Authors:  Mette Kjærgaard Nilsson; Rikke Friis; Maria Skjoldahl Michaelsen; Patrick Abildgaard Jakobsen; Rasmus Oestergaard Nielsen
Journal:  J Foot Ankle Res       Date:  2012-02-17       Impact factor: 2.303

5.  A digital photographic measurement method for quantifying foot posture: validity, reliability, and descriptive data.

Authors:  Stephen C Cobb; C Roger James; Matthew Hjertstedt; James Kruk
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2011 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.860

6.  Foot kinematics during a bilateral heel rise test in participants with stage II posterior tibial tendon dysfunction.

Authors:  Jeff R Houck; Christopher Neville; Josh Tome; A Samuel Flemister
Journal:  J Orthop Sports Phys Ther       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 4.751

7.  Relationships between the Foot Posture Index and foot kinematics during gait in individuals with and without patellofemoral pain syndrome.

Authors:  Christian J Barton; Pazit Levinger; Kay M Crossley; Kate E Webster; Hylton B Menz
Journal:  J Foot Ankle Res       Date:  2011-03-14       Impact factor: 2.303

8.  Clinical measures of static foot posture do not agree.

Authors:  Ben Langley; Mary Cramp; Stewart C Morrison
Journal:  J Foot Ankle Res       Date:  2016-12-01       Impact factor: 2.303

9.  Reliability and normative values for the foot mobility magnitude: a composite measure of vertical and medial-lateral mobility of the midfoot.

Authors:  Thomas G McPoil; Bill Vicenzino; Mark W Cornwall; Natalie Collins; Meghan Warren
Journal:  J Foot Ankle Res       Date:  2009-03-06       Impact factor: 2.303

10.  Arch height change during sit-to-stand: an alternative for the navicular drop test.

Authors:  Thomas G McPoil; Mark W Cornwall; Lynn Medoff; Bill Vicenzino; Kelly Forsberg; Dana Hilz
Journal:  J Foot Ankle Res       Date:  2008-07-28       Impact factor: 2.303

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.