Literature DB >> 26900501

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

Michael B Bade1, Timothy L Chi1, Kelly C Farrell1, Amanda J Gresl1, Laura J Hammel1, Bradley N Koster1, Ashley B Leatzow1, Emily C Thomas1, Thomas G McPoil1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The posture of the foot has been implicated as a factor in the development of running-related injuries. A static measure of foot posture, such as the longitudinal arch angle (LAA), that can be easily performed and is predictive of the posture of the foot at midsupport while running could provide valuable information to enhance the clinician's overall evaluation of the runner.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine if the LAA, assessed in relaxed standing, could predict the posture of the foot at midsupport while running on a treadmill. STUDY
DESIGN: Cross-sectional Study.
METHODS: Forty experienced runners (mean age 26.6 years) voluntarily consented to participate. Inclusion criteria included running at least 18 miles per week, previous experience running on a treadmill, no history of lower extremity congenital or traumatic deformity, or acute injury three months prior to the start of the study. Each runner had markers placed on the medial malleolus, navicular tuberosity, and medial aspect 1(st) metatarsal head of both feet. A high speed camera (240 Hz) was used to film both feet of each runner in standing and while running on a treadmill at their preferred speed. The LAA in standing and at mid-support while running was determined by angle formed by two lines drawn between the three markers with the navicular tuberosity serving as the apex. The LAA in midsupport was determined using the mean of the middle five running trials.
RESULTS: The levels of intra-rater and inter-rater reliability for the dynamic LAA were excellent. The results of the t-tests indicated that mean values between the left and right foot were not significantly different for the standing or running LAA. The results of the t-tests between male and female runners were also not significantly different for standing or running LAA. The Pearson correlation between standing and running LAA for all 80 feet was r = 0.95 (r(2) = 0.90).
CONCLUSIONS: The standing LAA was found to be highly predictive of the running LAA at midsupport while running. Approximately 90% of the variance associated with foot posture at midsupport in running could be explained by the standing LAA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4, Controlled laboratory study.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Foot posture; longitudinal arch angle; running

Year:  2016        PMID: 26900501      PMCID: PMC4739049     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Sports Phys Ther        ISSN: 2159-2896


  20 in total

1.  A comparison of three-dimensional lower extremity kinematics during running between excessive pronators and normals.

Authors:  Irene McClay; Kurt Manal
Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)       Date:  1998-04       Impact factor: 2.063

2.  Arch structure and injury patterns in runners.

Authors:  D S Williams; I S McClay; J Hamill
Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 2.063

3.  Three-dimensional measurement of rearfoot motion during running.

Authors:  M Areblad; B M Nigg; J Ekstrand; K O Olsson; H Ekström
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  1990       Impact factor: 2.712

4.  Development and validation of a novel rating system for scoring standing foot posture: the Foot Posture Index.

Authors:  Anthony C Redmond; Jack Crosbie; Robert A Ouvrier
Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)       Date:  2005-09-21       Impact factor: 2.063

5.  Prediction of dynamic foot posture during running using the longitudinal arch angle.

Authors:  Thomas G McPoil; Mark W Cornwall
Journal:  J Am Podiatr Med Assoc       Date:  2007 Mar-Apr

6.  Visual assessment of foot type and relationship of foot type to lower extremity injury.

Authors:  L K Dahle; M J Mueller; A Delitto; J E Diamond
Journal:  J Orthop Sports Phys Ther       Date:  1991       Impact factor: 4.751

7.  Biomechanical and anatomic factors associated with a history of plantar fasciitis in female runners.

Authors:  Michael B Pohl; Joseph Hamill; Irene S Davis
Journal:  Clin J Sport Med       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 3.638

8.  The incidence and risk factors in the development of medial tibial stress syndrome among naval recruits.

Authors:  Ben Yates; Shaun White
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2004 Apr-May       Impact factor: 6.202

9.  Differences in static and dynamic measures in evaluation of talonavicular mobility in gait.

Authors:  Jay M Dicharry; Jason R Franz; Ugo Della Croce; Robert P Wilder; Patrick O Riley; D Casey Kerrigan
Journal:  J Orthop Sports Phys Ther       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 4.751

10.  Selected static foot assessments do not predict medial longitudinal arch motion during running.

Authors:  Ben Langley; Mary Cramp; Stewart C Morrison
Journal:  J Foot Ankle Res       Date:  2015-10-12       Impact factor: 2.303

View more
  1 in total

1.  SUBTALAR JOINT IN NEUTRAL AND RELAXED POSITIONS FOR EVALUATION OF MEDIAL LONGITUDINAL ARCH.

Authors:  André Setti Persiane; Daiane Magalhães Gomes Negrão; Raone Daltro Paraguassu Alves; Diego Galace DE Freitas; Cláudio Cazarini; Vera Lúcia Dos Santos Alves
Journal:  Acta Ortop Bras       Date:  2021 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 0.513

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.