| Literature DB >> 31453111 |
Hiroshi Ohuchi1, Joverienne S Chavez1, Carlo Antonio D Alvarez1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Foot orthoses have been shown to reduce the collapse of the longitudinal arch and to constrain soft tissue displacement under the heel. However, there has not been a study that has shown the effectiveness of both the arch and heel features in the same orthosis. This study quantitatively analyzed if the calcaneal pitch and the heel pad thickness will be affected by the use of an arch support and heel cup insole in a static weightbearing stance while wearing sports shoes.Entities:
Keywords: Arch support; Calcaneal pitch; Foot orthoses; Heel cup; Heel fat pad thickness
Year: 2019 PMID: 31453111 PMCID: PMC6700667 DOI: 10.1016/j.asmart.2019.07.001
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Asia Pac J Sports Med Arthrosc Rehabil Technol ISSN: 2214-6873
Fig. 1Formthotics™ (Foot Science International, Christchurch, New Zealand) insoles.
Fig. 2Measurement of the calcaneal pitch.
Fig. 3Measurement of the heel fat pad thickness.
Calcaneal pitch angle difference.
| Calcaneal pitch angle (n = 24) | Foot | Without insole (degrees) | With insole (degrees) | Difference (degrees) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | R | 13.17 | 13.01 | 0.16 |
| L | 22.03 | 22.62 | 0.59 | |
| 2 | R | 13.69 | 14.64 | 0.95 |
| L | 23.57 | 24.81 | 1.24 | |
| 3 | R | 20.36 | 19.22 | 1.14 |
| L | 15.81 | 17.16 | 1.35 | |
| 4 | R | 17 | 17.97 | 0.97 |
| L | 18.2 | 21.18 | 2.98 | |
| 5 | R | 19.36 | 18.98 | 0.38 |
| L | 20.24 | 20.71 | 0.47 | |
| 6 | R | 19.52 | 22.6 | 3.08 |
| L | 16.3 | 16.8 | 0.5 | |
| 7 | R | 10.58 | 12.74 | 2.16 |
| L | 21.01 | 22.11 | 1.1 | |
| 8 | R | 12.63 | 13.1 | 0.47 |
| L | 23.74 | 26.93 | 3.19 | |
| 9 | R | 19.4 | 19.84 | 0.44 |
| L | 15.04 | 16.27 | 1.23 | |
| 10 | R | 22.88 | 22.91 | 0.03 |
| L | 19.09 | 21.78 | 2.69 | |
| 11 | R | 18.81 | 18.92 | 0.11 |
| L | 17.73 | 19.75 | 2.02 | |
| 12 | R | 20.76 | 20.85 | 0.09 |
| L | 16.39 | 17.7 | 1.31 |
R – right foot; L – left foot.
Fig. 4Calcaneal pitch angle difference (degrees).
Heel fat pad thickness (values from 2x magnification films).
| Heel fat pad thickness (n = 24) | Foot | Without insole (mm)** | With insole (mm) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | R | 21.37 | 29.36 | 7.99 |
| L | 22.71 | 26.7 | 3.99 | |
| 2 | R | 22.82 | 24.04 | 1.22 |
| L | 24.15 | 29.45 | 5.3 | |
| 3 | R | 23.09 | 29.15 | 6.06 |
| L | 24.04 | 28.13 | 4.09 | |
| 4 | R | 22.71 | 29.36 | 6.65 |
| L | 25.47 | 34.69 | 9.22 | |
| 5 | R | 25.37 | 34.77 | 9.4 |
| L | 17.38 | 24 | 6.62 | |
| 6 | R | 16.2 | 21.5 | 5.3 |
| L | 24.15 | 28.13 | 3.98 | |
| 7 | R | 24.04 | 28 | 3.96 |
| L | 24.04 | 30.7 | 6.66 | |
| 8 | R | 20.04 | 25.37 | 5.33 |
| L | 21.37 | 29.36 | 7.99 | |
| 9 | R | 24.02 | 27.02 | 3 |
| L | 25.37 | 29.36 | 3.99 | |
| 10 | R | 21.1 | 27.02 | 5.92 |
| L | 25.33 | 30.67 | 5.34 | |
| 11 | R | 24 | 29.3 | 5.3 |
| L | 18.7 | 24 | 5.3 | |
| 12 | R | 17.38 | 21.37 | 3.99 |
| L | 20.18 | 29.6 | 9.42 |
R – right foot; L – left foot
mm – millimeters.
Fig. 5Heel fat pad thickness difference (mm) (values from 2x magnification films).