Comparison of Barefoot vs. Shod Gait on Spinal Dynamics Using DIERS Formetric 4D and DIERS Pedoscan Systems

Abstract

Barefoot running is increasing in popularity within the running community, yet the biomechanical differences compared to traditional shod running are not well understood. This study investigates the changes in spinal dynamics during the gait cycle of runners wearing traditional running shoes (shod) compared to those wearing no shoes (barefoot). Pedal force distribution, kyphotic angle, lordotic angle, and trunk inclination were measured during shod and barefoot gait at three different speeds on a treadmill. Subjects were examined using the DIERS Formetric 4D system and DIERS Pedoscan system. While running barefoot, pedal force distribution analysis showed that 21.0% more force load goes through the forefoot vs. a 10.2% increase in forefoot force with shod (p = 0.0006). At 8.0 km·h −1 the average kyphotic angle was 1.6 degrees greater under barefoot conditions vs. shod conditions (p = 0.008). At 8.0 km·h −1 the average lordotic angle was 0.8 degrees greater under barefoot conditions vs. shod conditions (p = 0.05). Trunk inclination was 0.6 degrees and 0.8 degrees greater under barefoot conditions compared to shod conditions at natural speeds (p = 0.005) and 8.0 km·h −1 (p = 0.015), respectively. Barefoot runners show an increased force load in the forefoot, eliciting a forefoot strike pattern while running barefoot compared to shod running, and it was also found that barefoot runners have reduced trunk inclination. These dynamic changes allow for a more spring-like effect for barefoot runners creating a less transient and slower rise in force. In contrast, a heel strike pattern yields a rapid and high impact collision between heel and ground. As a result, barefoot running translates into less stress on the joints of the lower extremity and back and therefore less risk of injury.

Evaluation of the association between postural control and sagittal curvature of the spine

“…Basic descriptive statistics analysis was performed. To assess the normality of the distribution of variables, we used the Kolmogorov‒Smirnov test [ 40 ]. To establish the relationship between the studied variables, we used the Spearman rank correlation test [ 41 ].…”

Managing Toe Walking, a Treatment Side Effect, in a Child With T-Cell Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma: A Case Report

“…Analyses of static load (WB) distribution, postural sway based on CoP movement, surface topography of body posture, and gait were carried out using DIERS Formetric 4D system (DIERS International GmbH, Germany), a light-optical scanning method based on video raster stereography (13)(14)(15)(16). The system projects a line grid on the back of the patient, recorded by an imaging unit.…”

“…The system projects a line grid on the back of the patient, recorded by an imaging unit. A computer software analyzes the line curvature and generates a three-dimensional model of the body surface using photogrammetry (13)(14)(15)(16).…”

“…The mean values from three trials were used to calculate the postural parameters, WB distribution, and stability indices from the CoP trajectories. To characterize the dynamic and static body posture a set of parameters were chosen ( Table 1) (15,16).…”

Surface Topography Assessments of Spine Shape Change within the Day in Healthy Male Adults

“…Girdler et al [5] illustrated that the DIERS formetric scanner can contribute to AIS diagnosis and monitor without radiation exposure. Through measuring spine posture difference, it was found that DIERS 4D Formetric system can evaluate the differences of trunk inclination and kyphotic angle between barefoot and shod runners [19]. Spine morphology is also a crucial index for acute and chronic low back pain evaluation [1].…”