Orthoses posted in both the forefoot and rearfoot reduce moments and angular impulses on lower extremity joints during walking
Introduction
It has been claimed that the varus foot, through anatomic and functional constraints (McPoil and Knecht, 1985, Root et al., 1977), results in an everted calcaneus, excessive subtalar joint pronation, knee abduction, hip adduction and lower extremity internal rotation during gait (Michaud, 1993, Tiberio, 1987, Tiberio, 1988). These abnormal motions caused by the varus foot have often been considered risk factors for running injury (Ferber et al., 2009, Hamill et al., 1999, McClay and Manal, 1998, Messier and Pittala, 1988). Most orthoses designed to prevent excessive pronation focus on controlling rearfoot motion. Nevertheless, a forefoot varus abnormality is considered a ‘destructive foot’ because of its proposed mechanism to cause prolonged excessive pronation in the late stance phase which could affect lower leg biomechanics during gait, create abnormally high torques in the lower extremity and lead to chronic knee, hip and pelvic injury (Holt and Hamill, 1995, Michaud, 1993, Tiberio, 1988). Supporting this supposition, Gross et al. (2007) found that elderly individuals with a large forefoot varus in non-weight bearing had a two times greater incidence of hip osteoarthritis and a five times greater risk for total hip replacement.
Recent evidence (Monaghan et al., 2013) has shown that individuals with large forefoot varus (>15°), at foot contact measured relative to the ground plane (Holt and Hamill, 1995), had a greater range and duration of pronation during stance than those with less forefoot varus. Since such increased and prolonged pronation is claimed to affect the relative motions among the lower extremity joints and stress the hip joint (Michaud, 1993, Tiberio, 1988), this would provide a potential mechanism for the hip pathology observed by Gross et al. (2007). In contrast to the forefoot posture, the rearfoot posture was not related to the amount or timing of pronation (Monaghan et al., 2013) or the incidence of hip osteoarthritis and/or total hip replacement (Gross et al., 2007).
Investigations of the effectiveness of orthoses in walking have largely been limited to those designed to control rearfoot motion, with results showing equivocal effects on the motion of the foot (Eng and Pierrynowski, 1994, Ferber and Benson, 2011, McCulloch et al., 1993, Novick and Kelley, 1990, Zifchock and Davis, 2008). One experiment indicated a decrease in moments at the foot (Nester et al., 2003), and reduction of knee frontal plane motion (Eng and Pierrynowski, 1994). The only study that investigated the kinetics of proximal joints in walking showed no effects on the knee and hip (Nester et al., 2003). However, orthoses utilizing medial posting have done so only in the rearfoot with some extended distally to a point proximal to the first metatarsal head. This design may not provide sufficient control during late stance as orthoses posted up to the metatarsophalangeal joint line have dynamical effects only from foot contact to mid-stance (MacLean et al., 2006). Once the heel leaves the ground and the body weight transfers to the forefoot, a rearfoot orthosis will not be effective in controlling the pronation in a varus forefoot undergoing a large pronatory torque (Holt and Hamill, 1995). To date, however, there have been no studies investigating the effects of orthoses with medial posting that extended through the forefoot to the end of the first toe during walking either in the foot or in the more proximal joints. In the studies that reported forefoot posting, that posting extended only to the first metatarsal head.
The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of custom-made orthoses posted in both the forefoot (extended to and including the first toe) and rearfoot on lower extremity kinematics and kinetics during walking. It was hypothesized that such orthoses would diminish the theorized effects of increased and late pronation on lower extremity biomechanics, by: (a) reducing foot eversion, knee internal rotation and hip adduction and internal rotation motions, (b) increasing knee adduction motion, (c) affecting ankle inversion, knee abduction and external rotation, and hip abduction and external rotation moments and angular impulses.
Section snippets
Participants
Fifteen adults (8 females and 7 males; mean age: 22.9±4.9 years) were recruited for this study (Table 1). Using data from the literature a sample size of 15 was estimated to achieve statistical power of 0.8 and alpha level of 0.05 (Mundermann et al., 2003, Williams et al., 2003). The inclusion criterion was bilateral forefoot varus abnormality greater than 10°. Thirteen of 15 participants had a past history of non-traumatic lower extremity injury. Individuals with lower extremity pain at the
Results
Fig. 3, Fig. 4 displays the average curves of medio-lateral ground reaction force, free moment, lower extremity kinematic variables, and lower extremity kinetic variables for all participants. The kinematic, kinetic, and angular impulse results are shown in Table 3, Table 4, Table 5, respectively.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of orthoses with a medial post on both the forefoot and rearfoot on lower extremity kinematics and kinetics during walking in individuals with a forefoot varus greater than 10°. As expected, the peak eversion angle of the forefoot was decreased by the physical constraints of the orthoses. Additionally, the peak eversion angle occurred later in the gait cycle suggesting that the orthoses were capable of slowing the rate of pronation. The ankle
Conclusion
In this study, we investigated the effects of orthoses posted in both the forefoot and rearfoot on the kinematics and kinetics of the foot and lower extremity. Our results suggest that the anatomy of the forefoot is important in influencing lower extremity kinematics and kinetics—a structure that has previously been grossly underestimated. Therefore, forefoot abnormalities and their potential for contributing to lower extremity injuries should be considered when evaluating and treating
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by Dudley Allen Sargent Research Fund, College of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences: Sargent College, Boston University.
References (38)
- et al.
Analysis of a kinetic multi-segment foot model. Part I: model repeatability and kinematic validity
Gait Posture
(2012) - et al.
Analysis of a kinetic multi-segment foot model. part II: kinetics and clinical implications
Gait Posture
(2012) - et al.
Measured and estimated ground reaction forces for multi-segment foot models
J. Biomech.
(2010) - et al.
A dynamical systems approach to lower extremity running injuries
Clin. Biomech.
(1999) - et al.
The free moment of ground reaction in distance running and its changes with pronation
J. Biomech.
(1991) - et al.
Rear-foot, mid-foot and fore-foot motion during the stance phase of gait
Gait Posture
(2007) - et al.
Influence of a custom foot orthotic intervention on lower extremity dynamics in healthy runners
Clin. Biomech.
(2006) - et al.
A comparison of three-dimensional lower extremity kinematics during running between excessive pronators and normals
Clin. Biomech.
(1998) - et al.
Free moment as a predictor of tibial stress fracture in distance runners
J.f Biomech.
(2006) - et al.
Forefoot angle determines duration and amplitude of pronation during walking
Gait Posture
(2013)
Foot orthotics affect lower extremity kinematics and kinetics during running
Clin. Biomech.
Effect of foot orthoses on the kinematics and kinetics of normal walking gait
Gait Posture
Contribution of passive tissues to the intersegmental moments at the hip
J. Biomech.
A comparison of semi-custom and custom foot orthotic devices in high- and low-arched individuals during walking
Clin. Biomech.
The free moment in walking and its change with foot rotation angle
Sports Med., Arthrosc., Rehabilit., Ther. Technol.
Hip abduction moment and protection against medial tibiofemoral osteoarthritis progression
Arthritis Rheum.
External frontal plane loads may be associated with tibial stress fracture
Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise
The effect of soft foot orthotics on three-dimensional lower-limb kinematics during walking and running
Phys. Ther.
Cited by (29)
Orthopedic insole care – a Review
2023, Fuss und SprunggelenkDo posted foot orthoses alter hip biomechanics and pain during walking in women with greater trochanteric pain syndrome?
2023, Gait and PostureCitation Excerpt :Reduced hip adduction is proposed to lengthen the moment arm of the hip abductor muscles, increasing their effectiveness, while the resultant decreased HAM potentially reduces compression of the gluteal tendons on the greater trochanter. Further, Hsu et al. [20] demonstrated that the use of a custom medially-posted orthosis over a four-week period significantly reduced hip adduction angle. These authors also noted a reduction in the hip abduction moment, proposing that this may be due to less demand being placed on the hip abductor muscles.
Can orthotic wedges change the lower-extremity and multi-segment foot kinematics during gait in people with plantar fasciitis?
2022, Gait and PostureCitation Excerpt :In contrast, both the forefoot and the combination wedge decreased peak rearfoot eversion when compared with the control condition, which appears to be an effective control of excessive foot pronation during stance phase [6], however the prescription of foot orthotics in people with PF remains unclear, and there is a lack of information on the kinematic changes in different types of foot orthotics used in the management of people with PF. It has been suggested that the rearfoot and forefoot angles should be examined to prescribe the appropriate amount of correction needed [6–10]. Two different foot assessment techniques have been reported [9,11].
Multisegment Foot Models
2022, Foot and Ankle Biomechanics