2009
DOI: 10.3113/fai.2009.0361
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Ankle and Subtalar Kinematics during Dorsiflexion-Plantarflexion Activities

Abstract: These data can serve as the basis for comparison with pathologic feet for both diagnostic and therapeutic purposes.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

8
83
2

Year Published

2011
2011
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 85 publications
(93 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
8
83
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Statistics were not used to compare contributions of the subtalar and tibiotalar to the overall arc of motion at the ankle, but results from the feasibility study are comparable to the literature (S -Table 5) [12,15]. For the volunteer, the mean change in subtalar inversion/eversion during toe-off in our subject was approximately five times that of the tibiotalar joint (15.51±3.80° versus 3.82±1.28°), strengthening the belief that the subtalar joint is primarily responsible for this motion as previously postulated (e.g., Yamaguchi et al) [7,12]. Still, the tibiotalar joint M a n u s c r i p t 14 offered inversion/eversion, a phenomenon that will be explored in future studies.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 87%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Statistics were not used to compare contributions of the subtalar and tibiotalar to the overall arc of motion at the ankle, but results from the feasibility study are comparable to the literature (S -Table 5) [12,15]. For the volunteer, the mean change in subtalar inversion/eversion during toe-off in our subject was approximately five times that of the tibiotalar joint (15.51±3.80° versus 3.82±1.28°), strengthening the belief that the subtalar joint is primarily responsible for this motion as previously postulated (e.g., Yamaguchi et al) [7,12]. Still, the tibiotalar joint M a n u s c r i p t 14 offered inversion/eversion, a phenomenon that will be explored in future studies.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 87%
“…Intra-cortical pins with reflective markers have independently tracked the tibia, talus, and calcaneus [4,5], but this approach is highly invasive. Other studies have used single plane fluoroscopy to study invivo motions of the ankle [6][7][8]. However, out-of-plane motions, such as axial rotation of the subtalar joint, cannot be accurately measured with single plane fluoroscopy [9].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A further explanation for this discrepancy may be due to the asymptomatic population used within the study. Symptomless individuals must possess at least 10 0 of ankle DF-ROM in order to walk, descend stairs or kneel (Crosbie et al, 1999), whilst at least 20 0 is needed for running (Yamaguchi et al, 2009). Indeed, the baseline characteristics of the participants were analogous to normative ranges in healthy adults (Hoch & McKeon, 2011b).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(While the examples discussed in this paper are foot specific, the principles apply to any joint in the body.) Methods include X-ray stereophotogrammetry [1,2], time sequence magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) [3], retro-reflective markers, placed either on the skin [4] or on bone pins [5], or recently, single [6] and biplane fluoroscopy [7,8]. Some of these methods involve ionizing radiation (X-ray stereophotogrammetry and fluoroscopy) or are highly invasive (X-ray stereophotogrammetry and bone pins), leaving time sequence MRI, and skin mounted markers as the safest methods.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%