Do different multi-segment foot models detect the same changes in kinematics when wearing foot orthoses?
Biomechanical response
Foot orthoses
Multi-segment foot models
Oxford Foot Model
Journal
Journal of foot and ankle research
ISSN: 1757-1146
Titre abrégé: J Foot Ankle Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101471610
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 Sep 2022
08 Sep 2022
Historique:
received:
25
05
2022
accepted:
30
08
2022
entrez:
7
9
2022
pubmed:
8
9
2022
medline:
11
9
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Different multi-segment foot models have been used to explore the effect of foot orthoses. Previous studies have compared the kinematic output of different multi-segment foot models, however, no study has explored if different multi-segment foot models detect similar kinematic changes when wearing a foot orthoses. The aim of this study was to compare the ability of two different multi-segment foot models to detect kinematic changes at the hindfoot and forefoot during the single and double support phases of gait when wearing a foot orthosis. Foot kinematics were collected during walking from a sample of 32 individuals with and without a foot orthosis with a medial heel bar using an eight-camera motion capture system. The Oxford Foot Model (OFM) and a multi-segment foot model using the Calibrated Anatomical System Technique (CAST) were applied simultaneously. Vector field statistical analysis was used to explore the kinematic effects of a medial heel bar using the two models, and the ability of the models to detect any changes in kinematics was compared. For the hindfoot, both models showed very good agreement of the effect of the foot orthosis across all three anatomical planes during the single and double support phases. However, for the forefoot, the level of agreement between the models varied with both models showing good agreement of the effect in the coronal plane but poorer agreement in the transverse and sagittal planes. This study showed that while consistency exists across both models for the hindfoot and forefoot in the coronal plane, the forefoot in the transverse and sagittal planes showed inconsistent responses to the foot orthoses. This should be considered when interpreting the efficacy of different interventions which aim to change foot biomechanics.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Different multi-segment foot models have been used to explore the effect of foot orthoses. Previous studies have compared the kinematic output of different multi-segment foot models, however, no study has explored if different multi-segment foot models detect similar kinematic changes when wearing a foot orthoses. The aim of this study was to compare the ability of two different multi-segment foot models to detect kinematic changes at the hindfoot and forefoot during the single and double support phases of gait when wearing a foot orthosis.
METHODS
METHODS
Foot kinematics were collected during walking from a sample of 32 individuals with and without a foot orthosis with a medial heel bar using an eight-camera motion capture system. The Oxford Foot Model (OFM) and a multi-segment foot model using the Calibrated Anatomical System Technique (CAST) were applied simultaneously. Vector field statistical analysis was used to explore the kinematic effects of a medial heel bar using the two models, and the ability of the models to detect any changes in kinematics was compared.
RESULTS
RESULTS
For the hindfoot, both models showed very good agreement of the effect of the foot orthosis across all three anatomical planes during the single and double support phases. However, for the forefoot, the level of agreement between the models varied with both models showing good agreement of the effect in the coronal plane but poorer agreement in the transverse and sagittal planes.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This study showed that while consistency exists across both models for the hindfoot and forefoot in the coronal plane, the forefoot in the transverse and sagittal planes showed inconsistent responses to the foot orthoses. This should be considered when interpreting the efficacy of different interventions which aim to change foot biomechanics.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36071489
doi: 10.1186/s13047-022-00574-z
pii: 10.1186/s13047-022-00574-z
pmc: PMC9454165
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
68Subventions
Organisme : Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci
ID : IGA_FTK_2018_014
Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
J Foot Ankle Res. 2018 Nov 14;11:60
pubmed: 30473733
Gait Posture. 2010 Oct;32(4):519-23
pubmed: 20696579
Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2015 Aug;23(8):1316-22
pubmed: 25749010
J Foot Ankle Res. 2017 Feb 4;10:8
pubmed: 28174605
Foot Ankle Int. 2008 Mar;29(3):265-72
pubmed: 18348821
J Biomech. 2013 May 31;46(9):1489-95
pubmed: 23631857
Gait Posture. 2020 Sep;81:247-253
pubmed: 32818861
J Biomech. 2001 Oct;34(10):1299-307
pubmed: 11522309
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 1995 Jun;10(4):171-178
pubmed: 11415549
Foot Ankle Int. 2012 Feb;33(2):141-7
pubmed: 22381346
Clin Rheumatol. 2016 Apr;35(4):987-96
pubmed: 25917211
Gait Posture. 2019 Mar;69:50-59
pubmed: 30665039
Gait Posture. 2011 Feb;33(2):286-91
pubmed: 21194952
Gait Posture. 2016 Jan;43:192-7
pubmed: 26471323
Gait Posture. 2022 Jan;91:48-51
pubmed: 34649170
Gait Posture. 2020 Oct;82:126-132
pubmed: 32920448
J Foot Ankle Res. 2016 Feb 24;9:7
pubmed: 26913080
Gait Posture. 2009 Jul;30(1):118-21
pubmed: 19356932
J Appl Biomech. 2018 Oct 18;:1-6
pubmed: 29809093
Gait Posture. 2006 Jun;23(4):401-10
pubmed: 15914005
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2012 Dec;44(12):2384-91
pubmed: 22968307
Somatosens Mot Res. 2020 Jun;37(2):125-131
pubmed: 32314675
Gait Posture. 2018 Sep;65:106-111
pubmed: 30558915
Gait Posture. 2021 Feb;84:93-101
pubmed: 33290904
J Foot Ankle Res. 2022 Jan 6;15(1):1
pubmed: 34991669
J Biomech Eng. 1983 May;105(2):136-44
pubmed: 6865355
Gait Posture. 2011 Jan;33(1):108-12
pubmed: 21081275
Gait Posture. 2018 Jan;59:23-27
pubmed: 28985577
J Biomech. 2015 May 1;48(7):1277-85
pubmed: 25817475
Gait Posture. 2008 Aug;28(2):207-16
pubmed: 18206374