advertising
-
1.
Neumann DA: Kinesiology of the Musculoskeletal System: Foundations for Rehabilitation, 3rd Ed, Elsevier, St Louis, 2016.
-
2.
Carvalho ACA Junior & LCH, Costa LOP et al.: The association between runners' lower limb alignment with running-related injuries: a systematic review. Br J Sports Med 45 : 339, 2011.
-
3.
Cowan DN , Jones BH & Robinson JR: Foot morphologic characteristics and risk of exercise-related injury. Arch Fam Med 2 : 773, 1993.
-
4.
Kaufman KR , Brodine SK & Shaffer RA et al.: The effect of foot structure and range of motion on musculoskeletal overuse injuries. Am J Sports Med 27 : 585, 1999.
-
5.
Pohl MB , Hamill J & Davis IS: Biomechanical and anatomic factors associated with a history of plantar fasciitis in female runners. Clin J Sport Med 19 : 372, 2009.
-
6.
Simkin A , Leichter I & Giladi M et al.: Combined effect of foot arch structure and an orthotic device on stress fractures. Foot Ankle 10 : 25, 1989.
-
7.
Tong JW & Kong PW: Association between foot type and lower extremity injuries: systematic literature review with meta-analysis. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 43 : 700, 2013.
-
8.
Williams DS III, , McClay IS & Hamill J. Arch structure and injury patterns in runners. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 16 : 341, 2001.
-
9.
Hunt AE , Fahey AJ & Smith RM: Static measures of calcaneal deviation and arch angle as predictors of rearfoot motion during walking. Aust J Physiother 46 : 9, 2000.
-
10.
Dahle LK , Mueller MJ & Delitto A et al.: Visual assessment of foot type and relationship of foot type to lower extremity injury. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 14 : 70, 1991.
-
11.
McPoil TG & Cornwall MW: Use of the longitudinal arch angle to predict dynamic foot posture in walking. JAPMA 95 : 114, 2005.
-
12.
Barton CJ , Bonanno D & Levinger P et al.: Foot and ankle characteristics in patellofemoral pain syndrome: a case control and reliability study. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 40 : 286, 2010.
-
13.
Jonson SR & Gross MT: Intraexaminer reliability, interexaminer reliability, and mean values for nine lower extremity skeletal measures in healthy naval midshipmen. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 25 : 253, 1997.
-
14.
Sommer HM & Vallentyne SW: Effect of foot posture on the incidence of medial tibial stress syndrome. Med Sci Sports Exerc 27 : 800, 1995.
-
15.
Franettovich MM , McPoil TG & Russell T et al.: The ability to predict dynamic foot posture from static measurements. JAPMA 97 : 115, 2007.
-
16.
Langley B , Cramp M & Morrison SC: Selected static foot assessments do not predict medial longitudinal arch motion during running. J Foot Ankle Res 8 : 56, 2015.
-
17.
Bade MB , Chi TL & Farrell KC et al.: The use of a static measure to predict foot posture at midsupport during running. Int J Sports Phys Ther 11 : 64, 2016.
-
18.
McPoil TG & Cornwall MW: Prediction of dynamic foot posture during running using the longitudinal arch angle. JAPMA 97 : 102, 2007.
-
19.
Almeida MO , Davis IS & Lopes AD: Biomechanical differences of foot-strike patterns during running: a systematic review with meta-analysis. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 45 : 738, 2015.
-
20.
Hasegawa H , Yamauchi T & Kraemer WJ: Foot strike patterns of runners at the 15-km point during an elite-level half marathon. J Strength Cond Res 21 : 888, 2007.
-
21.
Cavanagh PR & Lafortune MA: Ground reaction forces in distance running. J Biomech 13 : 397, 1980.
-
22.
Kulmala JP , Avela J & Pasanen K et al.: Forefoot strikers exhibit lower running-induced knee loading than rearfoot strikers. Med Sci Sports Exerc 45 : 2306, 2013.
Prediction of the Longitudinal Arch Angle During Running for Various Foot Strike Patterns Using a Static Longitudinal Arch Angle Measurement
Search for other papers by Norio Tsujimoto in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Background
The medial longitudinal arch angle (LAA) of the foot has been used as an index of high and low arches. The LAA during the support phase of running (LAArun), which may be related to lower-limb injuries, is commonly predicted from the LAA at standing (LAAstand). However, it is not known whether this prediction is valid for all of the foot contact patterns. The purpose of this study was to verify whether prediction of the LAArun from the LAAstand is valid for different foot strike patterns.
Methods
The 26 participants were divided into a rearfoot strike group (n = 15) and a nonrearfoot strike group (n = 11). The LAA was obtained by measuring the angle formed between the line from the navicular bone to the medial malleolus and the line from the navicular bone to the first metatarsal head. The LAAstand and the minimum value of the LAArun, when the arch is most collapsed, were measured using a motion capture system.
Results
There were no significant differences in the LAAstand, the LAArun, and the difference (LAAstand – LAArun) between the two groups. In both groups, a very strong and significant correlation was found between the LAAstand and the LAArun. Furthermore, a nearly identical equation for predicting the LAArun from the LAAstand was derived for the two groups.
Conclusions
The LAArun can be predicted from the LAAstand for any foot strike pattern with almost the same equation.
Faculty of Sports and Health Sciences, Fukui University of Technology, 3-6-1, Gakuen, Fukui, 910-8505, Japan. (E-mail: tsujimoto@fukui-ut.ac.jp)
advertising
