advertising
-
1
Kirby K. Biomechanics of the normal and abnormal foot. JAPMA 90: 30, 2000.
-
2
McPoil G, Knecht HG. Biomechanics of the foot in walking: a function approach. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 7: 69, 1985.
-
3
Willems TM, Witvrouw E, De Cock A, et al: Gait-related risk factors for exercise-related lower-leg pain during shod running. Med Sci Sports Exerc 39: 330, 2007.
-
4
Ferber R, Davis IM, Williams DS III: Gender differences in lower extremity mechanics during running. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 18: 350, 2003.
-
5
Boling M, Padua D, Marshall S, et al: Gender differences in the incidence and prevalence of patellofemoral pain syndrome. Scand J Med Sci Sports 20: 725, 2010.
-
6
Taunton J: A retrospective case-control analysis of 2002 running injuries. Br J Sports Med 36: 95, 2002.
-
7
Chumanov ES, Wall-Scheffler C, Heiderscheit BC: Gender differences in walking and running on level and inclined surfaces. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 23: 1260, 2008.
-
8
Richards CE, Magin PJ, Callister R: Is your prescription of distance running shoes evidence-based? Br J Sports Med 43: 159, 2009.
-
9
Clarke T, Frederik E, Hamill C: The effects of shoe design parameters on rearfoot control in running. Med Sci Sports Exerc 15: 376, 1983.
-
10
Cheung RT, Wong MY, Ng GY: Effects of motion control footwear on running: a systematic review. J Sports Sci 29: 1311, 2011.
-
11
Peltz C, Haladik J, Hoffman S, et al: Effects of footwear on three-dimensional tibiotalar and subtalar joint motion during running. J Biomech 47: 2647, 2014.
-
12
Murley GS, Menz HB, Landorf KB: A protocol for classifying normal- and flat-arched foot posture for research studies using clinical and radiographic measurements. J Foot Ankle Res 2: 22, 2009.
-
13
Butler RJ, Hillstrom H, Song J, et al: Arch height index measurement system: establishment of reliability and normative values. JAPMA 98: 102, 2008.
-
14
Hoffman S, Peltz C, Haladik J, et al: Dynamic in-vivo assessment of navicular drop while running in barefoot, minimalist, and motion control footwear conditions. Gait Posture 41: 825, 2015.
-
15
Cheung RTH, Ng GYF. Efficacy of motion control shoes for reducing excessive rearfoot motion in fatigued runners. Phys Ther Sport 8: 75, 2007.
-
16
Cheung RT, Wong MY, Ng GY: Effects of motion control footwear on running: a systematic review. J Sports Sci 29: 1311, 2011.
Comparative Evaluation of Radiographic Parameters of Foot Pronation in Two Different Conditions versus Barefoot
Search for other papers by Derek S. Anselmo in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Jennifer Skolnik in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Emily Keeter in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Arwa M. El-Sayed in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Ebony Love in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Background:
To date, there is conflicting evidence that high-end “motion control” running shoes can correct and control rearfoot pronation. Many methods have been used to evaluate the efficacy of motion control footwear in reducing hindfoot pronation during gait, including stop-motion photography, three-dimensional camera kinematic analysis, and three-dimensional bone modeling using computed tomography. Until now, there have been no radiographic studies that examined the effect of motion control running shoes on the static posture of the foot. Murley et al devised a reliable system that correlated noninvasive clinical examinations to radiographic values that correspond to foot pronation. The aim of this prospective investigation was to determine whether motion control running shoes are able to produce a significant difference in pronation through a radiographic study, using the angular relationships as described by Murley et al, in two different shoe conditions as compared to the barefoot condition in female subjects.
Methods:
This prospective study screened 28 female subjects ranging in age from 22 to 27 years on the basis of arch height index. The 24 subjects with a standing arch height index less than 0.370 were invited to participate in the study. Unilateral weightbearing dorsoplantar and lateral foot radiographs were taken in barefoot, neutral shoe, and motion control shoe conditions. Calcaneal inclination angle, calcaneal–first metatarsal (CFMA) angle, talonavicular coverage angle (TNCA), and talus–second metatarsal angle were measured in each condition by two independent observers using the Opal-Ortho PACS software package and then averaged. Angles were compared to barefoot baseline values using paired t tests.
Results:
The motion control running shoe produced average decreases of 2.64% in CFMA, 12.62% in TNCA, 5.3% in talus–second metatarsal angle and an average increase of 1.3% in calcaneal inclination angle. Statistically significant (P > .05) improvements in CFMA were noted in both the motion control (P < .000) and neutral shoe conditions (P < .000) when compared to barefoot, whereas TNCA improved only in the motion control shoe condition as compared to barefoot (P = .003).
Conclusions:
This investigation found evidence that the particular models of motion control running shoes studied could correct foot pronation in the transverse and sagittal planes in stance. Motion control running shoes improved CFMA and TNCA from the barefoot condition and were more effective in correcting pronation compared with neutral running shoes in this radiographic study simulating static foot posture in stance.
advertising
