| Literature DB >> 24044429 |
Jee Chin Teoh1, Jin Huat Low, Ying Bena Lim, Victor Phyau-Wui Shim, Jaeyoung Park, Seung-Bum Park, Sang Jun Park, Taeyong Lee.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The growing ageing population and high prevalence of knee osteoarthritis (OA) in athletes across nations have created a strong demand for improved non-invasive therapeutic alternatives for knee OA. The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of the variable stiffness shoe (VSS), a new non-invasive therapeutic approach, on external knee adduction moment (EKAM) in various dynamic exercises. EKAM is believed to have positive correlation with the progression and development of knee OA.Entities:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24044429 PMCID: PMC3848782 DOI: 10.1186/1757-1146-6-39
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Foot Ankle Res ISSN: 1757-1146 Impact factor: 2.303
A summary of the biomechanical effect of interventions presented in the literature
| High Tibial Osteotomy (surgical intervention) | Bhatnagar | 30 HTO patients | 58% (No significant difference between 6 and 12 months post-HTO) |
| Birmingham | 126 patients with knee OA | 46% | |
| Weidenhielm | 9 patients after high tibial valgus osteotomy | 64% | |
| Laterally Wedged Insoles (Footwear intervention) | Shimada | 23 patients with medial knee OA | 4.4% |
| Kerrigan | 15 patients with clinical and radiographic OA | 6% (in 5° wedge) | |
| 8% (in 10° wedge) | |||
| Crenshaw | 15 normal healthy subjects | 7% | |
| Variable Stiffness Shoe (Footwear intervention) | Jenkyn | 32 subjects with medial compartment knee OA | 6.6% |
| Erhart | 1 subject with total knee replacement | 13.3% |
Participant characteristics
| Gender | 16 M / 14 F |
| Mean age (SD) | 22.6 (1.9) years |
| Body weight (SD) | 57.2 (7.9) kg |
| Body Mass Index (SD) | 20.68 (2.23) kg/m2 |
Figure 1Variable stiffness shoe with the lateral midsole (1.6C) that is 1.6 times stiffer than the medial midsole (1C). (A) section view, (B) side view.
Figure 2The different dynamic exercises tested in this experiment (A, B) drop-landing, (C) lateral hopping.
Figure 3The effect of shoe intervention on external knee adduction moment in (A) walking, (B) running, (C) drop-landing and (D) lateral hopping. *p < 0.05.
Group-mean (standard deviation) values of GRF during running
| Max Medial GRF | 17.45 (4.66) | 15.46 (4.16) | −11.42 | 0.013* |
| Posterior GRF | −19.33 (5.73) | −21.75 (8.5) | 12.52 | 0.147 |
| Anterior GRF | 29.32 (4.68) | 32.91 (5.4) | 12.21 | 0.010* |
| Max Vertical GRF | 220.74 (23.52) | 217.14 (21.82) | −1.63 | 0.131 |
*Significant at p < 0.05.
Group-mean (standard deviation) values of EKAM in two different shoe conditions
| Walking | EKAM (1st peak) | 4.23 (1.01) | 4.02 (1.03) | −4.97 | 0.039* |
| EKAM (2nd peak) | 2.00 (0.67) | 1.97 (0.78) | −1.64 | 0.422 | |
| Running | Max EKAM | 11.56 (3.32) | 10.27 (3.16) | −11.15 | 0.011* |
| Drop-landing | Max EKAM | 6.2 (2.92) | 5.5 (3.08) | −11.18 | 0.038* |
| Lateral hop | Max EKAM | 6.75 (3.14) | 5.58 (2.35) | −17.34 | 0.023* |
*Significant at p < 0.05.