Pathological kinematic patterns of the tarsal complex in stage II adult‐acquired flatfoot deformity

Wang, Chen; Wang, Heng; Cao, Shengxuan; Wang, Shaobai; Ma, Xin; Wang, Xu; Huang, Jiazhang; Zhang, Chao; Chen, Li; Geng, Xin; Wang, Kan

doi:10.1002/jor.23821

Cited by 6 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The image selection procedure was based on a custom-made platform with an embedded force plate, and seven key poses were chosen during one whole gait cycle. The seven selected poses were described in a previous study [21].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of a Semirigid Ankle Brace on the In Vivo Kinematics of Patients with Functional Ankle Instability during the Stance Phase of Walking

Zhang

Cao

Wang

et al. 2019

BioMed Research International

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An ankle brace is commonly used by patients after they suffer from initial ankle sprains, reducing the incidents of recurrent sprain or limiting laxity in joints with functional ankle instability (FAI). However, whether the application of a semirigid ankle brace can improve the abnormal ankle gait kinematics of patients with FAI remains unknown. This study aimed to determine the effect of a semirigid ankle brace on the gait kinematics of ankle joints through 3D-2D fluoroscopy image registration. A total of 8 subjects with FAI (3 males and 5 females, 10 feet) as FAI group and 10 subjects without FAI (6 males and 4 females, 10 feet) as control group were enrolled in this study. Three-dimensional bone models created from computed tomography images were matched to fluoroscopic images to compute the 6 degrees of freedom (DOF) talocrural, subtalar, and ankle joints complex kinematics for control and FAI group with or without brace during the stance phase of walking. FAI patients had significantly less ROMs in inversion/eversion rotation of the talocrural and subtalar joint after wearing semirigid ankle brace. Laxity was observed in most of the displacements of the talocrural and subtalar joints in FAI group. The brace partly altered the ankle joints movement in opposite directions, especially joint rotation, and restricted the talocrural and subtalar joints in the dorsiflexion position during the touch down phase of walking.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of a Semirigid Ankle Brace on the In Vivo Kinematics of Patients with Functional Ankle Instability during the Stance Phase of Walking

Zhang

Cao

Wang

et al. 2019

BioMed Research International

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our study, by utilizing the advanced 3D-to-2D registration technique as well [13,[15][16][17][18], aimed to investigate the motion characteristics of hindfoot joints in the stance phase more comprehensively based on the above mentioned 5 events in stage AAFD. Understanding the biomechanics of the hindfoot is critical to the proper care of patients with a variety of orthopedic impairments and foot deformities resulting from conditions such as cerebral palsy, spina bi da, club foot, traumatic brain injury and spinal cord injury [19,20].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Wang et al detected Synchronous and homodromous rotational motions of the TNJ, STJ, and CCJ during the stance phase [13].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…By comparing the hindfoot joints motion between normal volunteers and AAFD patients under a simulated full-body weight-bearing static condition, Zhang et al [14] reported excessive motion in the TNJ and STJ among AAFD patients, but the dynamic condition in the gait stance phase remained unclear. Wang et al [13] found that TNJ had a greater mobility in the sagittal plane while STJ had a greater mobility in the coronal plane in stage II AAFD patients by applying the 3D-to-2D registration technique based on dynamic x-rays. Although this study analyzed the motion difference in the tarsal complex between normal feet and atfeet in the stance phase, it failed to re ect the detailed motion change and trend during the whole stance phase, which can be divided into heel-strike (HS), foot-at (FF), midstance (MS), heel-off (HO), and toe-off (TO).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of in vivo hindfoot joint motion changes during stance phase between normal foot and stage II adult acquired flatfoot

Deng

Cai

Chen

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: To compare the kinematic characteristics of hindfoot joints in stage Ⅱ adult acquired flatfoot deformity (AAFD) with those of normal foot through the 3D-to-2D registration technology and single fluoroscopic imaging system.Methods: CT scans were performed on the bilateral feet of 7 normal volunteers and 8 volunteers with stage Ⅱ AAFD in neutral positions. Their lateral dynamic X-ray data during the stance phase, including 14 normal feet and 10 flatfeet, was collected. A computer-aided simulated light source for 3D CT model was applied to obtain the virtual images, which were matched with the dynamic X-ray images to register in the “Fluo” software, so that the spatial changes during the stance phase could be calculated.Results: During the early-stance phase, the calcaneous was more dorsiflexed, everted, and externally-rotated relative to the talus in flatfoot compared with that in normal foot, and the difference is statistically significant (p<0.05). During the mid-stance phase, the calcaneous was more dorsiflexed and everted relative to the talus in flatfoot compared with that in normal foot, and the difference is statistically significant (p<0.05); however, the rotation did not differ significantly between the two groups (p>0.05). During the late-stance phase, the calcaneous was more plantarflexed, but less inverted and internally-rotated, relative to the talus in flatfoot compared with that in normal foot, and the difference is statistically significant (p<0.05). During the early- and mid-stance phase, the navicular was more dorsiflexed, everted, and externally-rotated relative to the talus in flatfoot compared with that in normal foot, and the difference is statistically significant (p<0.05). During the late-stance phase, the navicular was more plantarflexed, but less inverted and internally-rotated, relative to the talus in flatfoot compared with that in normal foot, and the difference is statistically significant (p<0.05). There was no difference in the motion of cuboid between the two groups during the whole stance phase (p>0.05).Conclusions: During the early- and mid-stance phase, excessive motion was observed in the subtalar and talonavicular joints in stage Ⅱ AAFD. During the late-stance phase, the motion of subtalar and talonavicular joints appeared to be in the decompensated state. During the whole stance phase, the motion of calcaneocuboid joint showed no significant difference between normal foot and stage Ⅱ AAFD.

show abstract

“…The hindfoot joints are mainly comprised of three joints, namely the subtalar joint (STJ), the TNJ and the calcaneo-cuboid joint (CCJ). Wang et al detected synchronous and homodromous rotational motions of the TNJ, STJ, and CCJ during the stance phase [ 11 ]. Van de Velde et al showed significant differences in range of motion in patients with flatfoot.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of in vivo hindfoot joints motion changes during stance phase between non‐flatfoot and stage II adult acquired flatfoot

Deng

Cai

Chen

et al. 2022

Journal of Foot and Ankle Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background To compare the kinematic characteristics of hindfoot joints in stage II adult acquired flatfoot deformity (AAFD) with those of non-flatfoot through the 3D-to-2D registration technology and single fluoroscopic imaging system. Methods Eight volunteers with stage II AAFD and seven volunteers without stage II AAFD were recruited and CT scans were performed bilateral for both groups in neutral positions. Their lateral dynamic X-ray data during the stance phase, including 14 non-flatfeet and 10 flatfeet, was collected. A computer-aided simulated light source for 3D CT model was applied to obtain the virtual images, which were matched with the dynamic X-ray images to register in the “Fluo” software, so that the spatial changes during the stance phase could be calculated. Results During the early-stance phase, the calcaneous was more dorsiflexed, everted, and externally-rotated relative to the talus in flatfoot compared with that in non-flatfoot (p < 0.05). During the mid-stance phase, the calcaneous was more dorsiflexed and everted relative to the talus in flatfoot compared with that in non-flatfoot (p < 0.05); however, the rotation did not differ significantly between the two groups (p > 0.05). During the late-stance phase, the calcaneous was more plantarflexed, but less inverted and internally-rotated, relative to the talus in flatfoot compared with that in non-flatfoot (p < 0.05). During the early- and mid-stance phase, the navicular was more dorsiflexed, everted, and externally-rotated relative to the talus in flatfoot compared with that in non-flatfoot (p < 0.05). During the late-stance phase, the navicular was more plantarflexed, but less inverted and internally-rotated, relative to the talus in flatfoot compared with that in non-flatfoot (p < 0.05). There was no difference in the motion of cuboid between the two groups during the whole stance phase (p > 0.05). Conclusions During the early- and mid-stance phase, excessive motion was observed in the subtalar and talonavicular joints in stage II AAFD. During the late-stance phase, the motion of subtalar and talonavicular joints appeared to be in the dysfunction state. The current study helps better understanding the biomechanics of the hindfoot during non-flatfoot and flatfoot condition which is critical to the intervention to the AAFD using conservative treatment such as insole or surgical treatment for joint hypermotion.

show abstract

Pathological kinematic patterns of the tarsal complex in stage II adult‐acquired flatfoot deformity

Cited by 6 publications

References 31 publications

Effect of a Semirigid Ankle Brace on the In Vivo Kinematics of Patients with Functional Ankle Instability during the Stance Phase of Walking

Effect of a Semirigid Ankle Brace on the In Vivo Kinematics of Patients with Functional Ankle Instability during the Stance Phase of Walking

Comparison of in vivo hindfoot joint motion changes during stance phase between normal foot and stage II adult acquired flatfoot

Comparison of in vivo hindfoot joints motion changes during stance phase between non‐flatfoot and stage II adult acquired flatfoot

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About