کد مقاله | کد نشریه | سال انتشار | مقاله انگلیسی | نسخه تمام متن |
---|---|---|---|---|
4050376 | 1264924 | 2014 | 7 صفحه PDF | دانلود رایگان |
• Clinical foot angles can predict foot contact angle.
• Forefoot contact angle was associated rearfoot and forefoot kinematics rearfoot contact angle was not associated with rearfoot or forefoot kinematics.
BackgroundClinically, foot structures are assessed intrinsically – relation of forefoot to rearfoot and rearfoot to leg. We have argued that, from a biomechanical perspective, the interaction of the foot with the ground may influence forces and torques that are propagated through the lower extremity. We proposed that a more appropriate measure is an extrinsic one that may predict the angle the foot makes with ground at contact. The purposes of this study were to determine if the proposed measure predicts contact angles of the forefoot and rearfoot and assess if the magnitude of those angles influences amplitude and duration of foot eversion during running.MethodsWith the individual in prone, extrinsic clinical forefoot and rearfoot angles were measured relative to the caudal edge of the examination table. Participants ran over ground while frontal plane forefoot and rearfoot contact angles, forefoot and rearfoot eversion amplitude and duration were measured. Participants were grouped twice, once based on forefoot contact inversion angle (moderate < median and large > median) and once based on rearfoot contact inversion angle (moderate < median and large > median).FindingsThe forefoot and rearfoot extrinsic clinical angles predicted, respectively, the forefoot and rearfoot angles at ground contact. Large forefoot contact angles were associated with greater amplitudes (but not durations) of forefoot and rearfoot eversion during stance. Rearfoot contact angles, however, were associated with neither amplitudes nor durations of forefoot and rearfoot eversion.InterpretationPossible mechanisms for the increased risk of running injuries associated with large forefoot angles are discussed.
Journal: Clinical Biomechanics - Volume 29, Issue 8, September 2014, Pages 936–942