Segmental foot and ankle kinematic differences between rectus, planus, and cavus foot types

Foot form and function: Variable and versatile, yet sufficiently related to predict one from the other

“…The fact that the first PC of the current SFM described LA shape variations, similar to the first PC of prior statistical foot shape models, underscores the magnitude of variation in this aspect of the foot. Moreover, both the variations in load-induced shape deformations, as well as the midtarsal joint kinematics during locomotion also included in this PC support the notion that the LA of a high-arched foot is less likely to compress than that of a low-arched foot, under both static (Arangio et al, 1998; Cornwall and McPoil, 2011; Zifchock et al, 2006; Zifchock et al, 2017) and dynamic loading (Buldt et al, 2015; Kruger et al, 2019; McPoil et al, 2016). Nonetheless, this first PC accounted for only ∼16% of the overall variability, which indicates that the mechanical characteristics of a given foot cannot be defined based solely on the shape of its LA.…”

The effect of ankle and hindfoot malalignment on foot mechanics in patients suffering from post-traumatic ankle osteoarthritis

“…Similar shifts in Shank-Calcaneus kinematics were observed in previous studies highlighting differences in segmental foot kinematics J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f between rectus, planus and cavus feet. 5,25 A study analyzing segmental foot kinematic differences between foot types reported a shift in forefoot kinematics toward adduction in cavus foot compared to a neutral group in a sample of asymptomatic healthy adults. 25 Therefore, considering the kinematic coupling between foot segments, it might be expected that cavus OA would exhibit greater Midfoot-Metatarsus joint adduction in association with the inverted position of the Shank-Calcaneus joint compared to neutral OA; in pint of fact, however, a significantly more abducted position was found in the Midfoot-Metatarsus joint.…”

“…While the link is still unclear, the past literature stressed that, in order to systematically study foot and ankle pathology, objective measures of foot structure and intrinsic foot joint dynamics, sensitive to different foot morphotypes, are needed. 6,25,31 Previous studies demonstrated that foot posture (e.g., cavus, planus) influences foot and lower limb muscle activity 31 and joint kinematics 5 and kinetics 36 during gait. For example, ankle and midfoot power generation in children with pes planovalgus was respectively 38% and 37% lower than in control subjects.…”

ISB recommendations for skin-marker-based multi-segment foot kinematics

“…Early work in MFM demonstrated large standard deviations for many of the angular excursions in the hindfoot, midfoot and forefoot (Myers et al, 2004). We now know that much of that variability was due to the inclusion of individuals with different foot types in the analysis in combination with marker placement inaccuracy (Amene et al, 2019;Buldt et al, 2015;Kruger et al, 2019). If a cohort of flexible planus feet were compared to a cohort of well aligned rectus feet, several differences would be expected (e.g., greater eversion in the hindfoot of the planus feet compared with rectus).…”