D M Twomey1, A S McIntosh. 1. School of Risk and Safety Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia. d.twomey@ballarat.edu.au
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The effects of foot posture on the dynamic function of the lower limb during gait remains relatively unknown. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to investigate lower limb kinematics between the normal and low arched foot during the gait cycle, particularly in the transverse plane. METHOD: Twenty-four children, twelve with normal and twelve with low arched feet, aged 11-12 years underwent a lower limb three dimensional gait analysis. Temporo-spatial parameters and patterns and ranges of motion of kinematic data were examined for the pelvis, hip, knee and ankle throughout the gait cycle. RESULTS: Overall, there were very few differences found in the kinematics of the lower limbs between the normal and low arched group. Increased external hip rotation (6-7°) in the low arched group was the only bilateral significant difference (p<0.05) between the two foot groups. No significant differences existed in any temporo-spatial parameters between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The increased external hip rotation and greater external foot progression angle in the low arched foot highlights the need to examine gait comprehensively to establish cause or effect of these differences observed and hence determine appropriate treatment.
BACKGROUND: The effects of foot posture on the dynamic function of the lower limb during gait remains relatively unknown. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to investigate lower limb kinematics between the normal and low arched foot during the gait cycle, particularly in the transverse plane. METHOD: Twenty-four children, twelve with normal and twelve with low arched feet, aged 11-12 years underwent a lower limb three dimensional gait analysis. Temporo-spatial parameters and patterns and ranges of motion of kinematic data were examined for the pelvis, hip, knee and ankle throughout the gait cycle. RESULTS: Overall, there were very few differences found in the kinematics of the lower limbs between the normal and low arched group. Increased external hip rotation (6-7°) in the low arched group was the only bilateral significant difference (p<0.05) between the two foot groups. No significant differences existed in any temporo-spatial parameters between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The increased external hip rotation and greater external foot progression angle in the low arched foot highlights the need to examine gait comprehensively to establish cause or effect of these differences observed and hence determine appropriate treatment.
Authors: Seyed Hamed Mousavi; Laurens van Kouwenhove; Reza Rajabi; Johannes Zwerver; Juha M Hijmans Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-02-10 Impact factor: 3.240