advertising
-
1.
Root, ML, WP Orien, and JH Weed. :Normal and Abnormal Function of the Foot. ,Clinical Biomechanics Corp. ,Los Angeles. ,1977. .
-
2.
Rome, K . :Ankle joint dorsiflexion measurement studies: a review of the literature. .JAPMA 86::205. :1996. .
-
3.
Gastwirth, BW . : “Biomechanical Examination of the Foot and Lower Extremity. ,” inClinical Biomechanics of the Lower Extremities. ,R.L. Mosby. ,St. Louis. ,1996. .
-
4.
Wilken, J, S Rao, M Estin, et al. :A new device for assessing ankle dorsiflexion motion: reliability and validity. .J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 41::274. :2011. .
-
5.
Assal, M, JB Shofer, E Rohr, et al. :Assessment of an electronic goniometer designed to measure equinus contracture. .J Rehabil Res Dev 40::235. :2003. .
-
6.
Meyer, DC, CM Werner, T Wyss, et al. :A mechanical equinometer to measure the range of motion of the ankle joint: interobserver and intraobserver reliability. .Foot Ankle Int 27::202. :2006. .
-
7.
Donnery, J and RB Spencer. :The biplane goniometer: a new device for measurement of ankle dorsiflexion. .JAPMA 78::348. :1988. .
-
8.
Tiberio, D . :Evaluation of functional ankle dorsiflexion using subtalar neutral position: a clinical report. .Phys Ther 67::955. :1987. .
-
9.
Sullivan, RW . :The role of gait analysis in planning reconstructive surgery. .Operat Techn Plast Reconstr Surg 4::165. :1997. .
-
10.
Weir, J and N Chockalingam. :Ankle joint dorsiflexion: assessment of true values necessary for normal gait. .Int J Ther Rehabil 14::76. :2007. .
-
11.
Gatt, A and N Chockalingam. :Clinical assessment of ankle joint dorsiflexion: a review of measurement techniques. .JAPMA 101::59. :2011. .
-
12.
Tiberio, D, RW Bohannon, and MA Zito. :Effect of subtalar joint position on the measurement of maximum ankle dorsiflexion. .Clin Biomech 4::189. :1989. .
-
13.
Woodburn, J . :Video joint angle position analysis of the subtalar joint position on maximum ankle joint dorsiflexion. .J Br Podiatr Med 46::19. :1991. .
-
14.
Gatt, A, N Chockalingam, and T Larose Chevalier. :Sagittal plane kinematics of the foot during passive ankle dorsiflexion. .Prosthet Orthot Int 35::425. :2011. .
-
15.
Saxena, A and W Kim. :Ankle dorsiflexion in adolescent athletes. .JAPMA 93::312. :2003. .
-
16.
Martin, RL and TG McPoil. :Reliability of ankle goniometric measurements: a literature review. .JAPMA 95::564. :2005. .
-
17.
Wrobel, JS and DG Armstrong. :Reliability and validity of current physical examination techniques of the foot and ankle. .JAPMA 98::197. :2008. .
-
18.
Elveru, RA, JM Rothstein, and RL Lamb. :Goniometric reliability in a clinical setting: subtalar and ankle joint measurements. .Phys Ther 68::672. :1988. .
-
19.
Tabrizi, P, WM McIntyre, MB Quesnel, et al. :Limited dorsiflexion predisposes to injuries of the ankle in children. .J Bone Joint Surg Br 82::1103. :2000. .
-
20.
Grady, JF and A Saxena. :Effects of stretching the gastrocnemius muscle. .J Foot Surg 30::465. :1991. .
-
21.
Lundgren, P, C Nester, A Liu, et al. :Invasive in vivo measurement of rear-, mid- and forefoot motion during walking. .Gait Posture 28::93. :2008. .
-
22.
Carson, MC, ME Harrington, N Thompson, et al. :Kinematic analysis of a multi-segment foot model for research and clinical applications: a repeatability analysis. .J Biomech 34::1299. :2001. .
-
23.
Stebbins, J, M Harrington, N Thompson, et al. :Repeatability of a model for measuring multi-segment foot kinematics in children. .Gait Posture 23::401. :2006. .
-
24.
Wright, CJ, BL Arnold, TG Coffey, et al. :Repeatability of the modified Oxford foot model during gait in healthy adults. .Gait Posture 33::108. :2011. .
-
25.
Pierrynowsky, M, S Smith, and J Mlynarczyk. :Proficiency of foot care specialists to place the rearfoot at subtalar neutral. .JAPMA 86::217. :1996. .
-
26.
Lundberg, A, I Goldie, B Kalin, et al. :Kinematics of the ankle/foot complex: plantarflexion and dorsiflexion. .Foot Ankle 9::194. :1989. .
Sagittal Plane Kinematics of Passive Dorsiflexion of the Foot in Adolescent Athletes
Search for other papers by Alfred Gatt in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Nachiappan Chockalingam in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Owen Falzon in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Background:
Although assessment of passive maximum foot dorsiflexion angle is performed routinely, there is a paucity of information regarding adolescents’ foot and foot segment motion during this procedure. There are currently no trials investigating the kinematics of the adolescent foot during passive foot dorsiflexion.
Methods:
A six-camera optoelectronic motion capture system was used to collect kinematic data using the Oxford Foot Model. Eight female amateur gymnasts 11 to 16 years old (mean age, 13.2 years; mean height, 1.5 m) participated in the study. A dorsiflexing force was applied to the forefoot until reaching maximum resistance with the foot placed in the neutral, pronated, and supinated positions in random order. The maximum foot dorsiflexion angle and the range of movement of the forefoot to hindfoot, tibia to forefoot, and tibia to hindfoot angles were computed.
Results:
Mean ± SD maximum foot dorsiflexion angles were 36.3° ± 7.2° for pronated, 36.9° ± 4.0° for neutral, and 33.0° ± 4.9° for supinated postures. One-way repeated-measures analysis of variance results were nonsignificant among the 3 groups (P = .70), as were the forefoot to tibia angle and hindfoot to tibia angle variations (P = .091 and P = .188, respectively). Forefoot to hindfoot angle increased with the application of force, indicating that in adolescents, the forefoot does not lock at any particular posture as portrayed by the traditional Rootian paradigm.
Conclusions:
Participants had very flexible foot dorsiflexion, unlike those in another study assessing adolescent athletes. This finding, together with nonsignificant statistical results, implies that foot dorsiflexion measurement may be performed at any foot posture without notably affecting results. (J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 103(5): 394–399, 2013)
advertising
advertising
