An exploratory study investigating the effect of foot type and foot orthoses on gluteus medius muscle activity.
Electromyography
Foot type
Gluteus medius
Prefabricated foot orthoses
Journal
BMC musculoskeletal disorders
ISSN: 1471-2474
Titre abrégé: BMC Musculoskelet Disord
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968565
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 Oct 2020
07 Oct 2020
Historique:
received:
28
05
2020
accepted:
28
09
2020
entrez:
8
10
2020
pubmed:
9
10
2020
medline:
15
5
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Abnormal gluteus medius muscle activity is associated with a number of musculoskeletal conditions. Research investigating the effect of foot type and foot orthoses on gluteus medius muscle activity is both conflicting and limited. The primary aim was to investigate the relationship between foot type and gluteus medius muscle activity during shod walking. The secondary aims of this study were to explore the effect and amount of usage of a pair of unmodified prefabricated foot orthoses on gluteus medius muscle activity during shod walking. Foot type was determined using the foot posture index and gluteus medius muscle activity was measured with surface electromyography in 50 healthy adults during shod walking. Participants were then fitted with prefabricated foot orthoses and required to return after 4 weeks. Pearson's correlation and one-way ANOVA were used to determine effect of foot type. Paired t-tests and ANCOVA were used to determine effect of foot orthoses. Participants with a cavus foot type demonstrated significantly more gluteus medius mean (p = 0.04) and peak amplitude (p = 0.01), and a greater range in amplitude (p = 0.01) compared to participants with a neutral foot type. Compared to a planus foot type, participants with a cavus foot type demonstrated significantly larger mean (p = 0.02) and peak amplitude (p = 0.01), and a greater range in amplitude (p = 0.01). Prefabricated foot orthoses did not change the gluteus medius muscle activity. When assessing healthy adults with a cavus foot type, clinicians and researchers should be aware that these participants may display higher levels of gluteus medius muscle activity during gait compared to neutral and planus type feet. Additionally, clinicians and researchers should be aware that the type of prefabricated foot orthoses used did not change gluteus medius muscle activity over 4 weeks. Future research should aim to explore this relationship between foot type and gluteus medius muscle activity in larger sample sizes, consider the potential role of other lower extremity muscles and biomechanical variables, and investigate if these findings also occur in people with pathology.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Abnormal gluteus medius muscle activity is associated with a number of musculoskeletal conditions. Research investigating the effect of foot type and foot orthoses on gluteus medius muscle activity is both conflicting and limited. The primary aim was to investigate the relationship between foot type and gluteus medius muscle activity during shod walking. The secondary aims of this study were to explore the effect and amount of usage of a pair of unmodified prefabricated foot orthoses on gluteus medius muscle activity during shod walking.
METHODS
METHODS
Foot type was determined using the foot posture index and gluteus medius muscle activity was measured with surface electromyography in 50 healthy adults during shod walking. Participants were then fitted with prefabricated foot orthoses and required to return after 4 weeks. Pearson's correlation and one-way ANOVA were used to determine effect of foot type. Paired t-tests and ANCOVA were used to determine effect of foot orthoses.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Participants with a cavus foot type demonstrated significantly more gluteus medius mean (p = 0.04) and peak amplitude (p = 0.01), and a greater range in amplitude (p = 0.01) compared to participants with a neutral foot type. Compared to a planus foot type, participants with a cavus foot type demonstrated significantly larger mean (p = 0.02) and peak amplitude (p = 0.01), and a greater range in amplitude (p = 0.01). Prefabricated foot orthoses did not change the gluteus medius muscle activity.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
When assessing healthy adults with a cavus foot type, clinicians and researchers should be aware that these participants may display higher levels of gluteus medius muscle activity during gait compared to neutral and planus type feet. Additionally, clinicians and researchers should be aware that the type of prefabricated foot orthoses used did not change gluteus medius muscle activity over 4 weeks. Future research should aim to explore this relationship between foot type and gluteus medius muscle activity in larger sample sizes, consider the potential role of other lower extremity muscles and biomechanical variables, and investigate if these findings also occur in people with pathology.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33028280
doi: 10.1186/s12891-020-03683-7
pii: 10.1186/s12891-020-03683-7
pmc: PMC7542334
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
655Références
Br J Sports Med. 2010 Nov;44(14):1035-46
pubmed: 19996330
Clin J Sport Med. 2001 Jan;11(1):2-9
pubmed: 11176139
J Foot Ankle Res. 2011 Mar 14;4:10
pubmed: 21401957
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2011 Feb;41(2):100-7
pubmed: 20972342
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2018 Nov;59:117-129
pubmed: 30227277
J Foot Ankle Res. 2010 Jun 16;3:9
pubmed: 20550714
Gait Posture. 2012 May;36(1):7-15
pubmed: 22440758
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2010 Aug;25(7):728-36
pubmed: 20538390
J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2018 Dec;43:7-13
pubmed: 30145319
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005 Jan;86(1):26-30
pubmed: 15640985
Gait Posture. 2016 May;46:75-80
pubmed: 27131181
Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2018 Apr;34:103-107
pubmed: 28928032
Am J Phys Anthropol. 2010 Dec;143(4):601-11
pubmed: 20623603
Public Health Nutr. 2006 Sep;9(6):755-62
pubmed: 16925881
J Foot Ankle Res. 2008 Jul 31;1(1):6
pubmed: 18822155
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2014 Nov;29(9):1056-62
pubmed: 25441771
J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2008 Jan-Feb;98(1):7-13
pubmed: 18202328
Gait Posture. 2009 Feb;29(2):172-87
pubmed: 18922696
J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2000 Oct;10(5):361-74
pubmed: 11018445
Gait Posture. 2007 Jan;25(1):2-8
pubmed: 16483778
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007 Jan;88(1):88-93
pubmed: 17207681
Foot (Edinb). 2014 Jun;24(2):75-80
pubmed: 24703513
Physiother Theory Pract. 2012 May;28(4):257-68
pubmed: 22007858
Sports Med. 2014 Dec;44(12):1703-16
pubmed: 25100644
J Strength Cond Res. 2009 Dec;23(9):2689-94
pubmed: 19910807
Gait Posture. 2003 Oct;18(2):81-91
pubmed: 14654211
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998 Oct;(355):3-7
pubmed: 9917586
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011 Dec;43(12):2335-43
pubmed: 21552159
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2014 Feb;29(2):177-82
pubmed: 24359629
BMJ. 2014 Mar 07;348:g1687
pubmed: 24609605
Gait Posture. 2004 Jun;19(3):263-9
pubmed: 15125915
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2019 Oct 22;20(1):463
pubmed: 31638962
Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2011 Sep;6(3):206-23
pubmed: 22034614
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2009 Jan;24(1):26-34
pubmed: 19013697
J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2013;26(2):117-23
pubmed: 23640312
Sports Med. 2000 Jun;29(6):425-38
pubmed: 10870868
Gait Posture. 2019 Jul;72:109-122
pubmed: 31195310
Foot (Edinb). 2012 Sep;22(3):224-31
pubmed: 22503311
J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2000 Mar;90(3):149-58
pubmed: 10740997
J Athl Train. 2014 May-Jun;49(3):290-6
pubmed: 24840580
J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2018 Apr;39:35-41
pubmed: 29413451