Invasive study of rearfoot, midfoot and forefoot kinematics during walking

Nester, Christopher; Jones, Richard; Liu, A; Howard, David; Lundberg, Arne; Arndt, T.; Lundgren, P.; Stacoff, Alex; Wolf, Peter

doi:10.1016/s0021-9290(06)83195-7

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This leaves the second metatarsal head relatively "exposed" and bearing substantial load, with progressively less load on the third, fourth and fifth metatarsals. The dorsiflexion of the first but not the second metatarsal is said to be due to its greater mobility and recent data lends some credibility to this [ 3 , 4 ]. Thus, the mobile foot is thought to be associated with greatest load on metatarsal head two with progressively less on three and four.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Foot kinematics in patients with two patterns of pathological plantar hyperkeratosis

Findlow

Nester

Bowker

2011

Journal of Foot and Ankle Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe Root paradigm of foot function continues to underpin the majority of clinical foot biomechanics practice and foot orthotic therapy. There are great number of assumptions in this popular paradigm, most of which have not been thoroughly tested. One component supposes that patterns of plantar pressure and associated hyperkeratosis lesions should be associated with distinct rearfoot, mid foot, first metatarsal and hallux kinematic patterns. Our aim was to investigate the extent to which this was true.MethodsTwenty-seven subjects with planter pathological hyperkeratosis were recruited into one of two groups. Group 1 displayed pathological plantar hyperkeratosis only under metatarsal heads 2, 3 and 4 (n = 14). Group 2 displayed pathological plantar hyperkeratosis only under the 1st and 5th metatarsal heads (n = 13). Foot kinematics were measured using reflective markers on the leg, heel, midfoot, first metatarsal and hallux.ResultsThe kinematic data failed to identify distinct differences between these two groups of subjects, however there were several subtle (generally <3°) differences in kinematic data between these groups. Group 1 displayed a less everted heel, a less abducted heel and a more plantarflexed heel compared to group 2, which is contrary to the Root paradigm.ConclusionsThere was some evidence of small differences between planter pathological hyperkeratosis groups. Nevertheless, there was too much similarity between the kinematic data displayed in each group to classify them as distinct foot types as the current clinical paradigm proposes.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%