advertising
-
1.
Redmond AC, Crane YZ, Menz HB: Normative values for the Foot Posture Index. J Foot Ankle Res 1: 6, 2008.
-
2.
Powell DW, Long B, Milner CE, et al: Frontal plane multi-segment foot kinematics in high- and low-arched females during dynamic loading tasks. Hum Mov Sci 30: 105, 2011.
-
3.
Saraswat P, MacWilliams BA, Davis RB, et al: Kinematics and kinetics of normal and planovalgus feet during walking. Gait Posture 39: 339, 2014.
-
4.
Scattone Silva R, Maciel CD, Serrão FV: The effects of forefoot varus on hip and knee kinematics during single-leg squat. Man Ther 20: 79, 2015.
-
5.
Lee SY, Hertel J, Lee SC: Rearfoot eversion has indirect effects on plantar fascia tension by changing the amount of arch collapse. Foot (Edinb) 20: 64, 2010.
-
6.
Aicale R, Tarantino D, Maffulli N: Overuse injuries in sport: a comprehensive overview. J Orthop Surg Res 13: 1, 2018.
-
7.
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.
-
8.
Williams DS, McClay IS, Hamill J: Arch structure and injury patterns in runners. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 16: 341, 2001.
-
9.
Moen MH, Bongers T, Bakker EW, et al: Risk factors and prognostic indicators for medial tibial stress syndrome. Scand J Med Sci Sports 22: 34, 2012.
-
10.
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.
-
11.
Buldt AK, Murley GS, Butterwortch P, et al: The relationship between foot posture and lower limb kinematics during walking: a systematic review. Gait Posture 38: 363, 2013.
-
12.
Buldt AK, Levinger P, Murley GS, et al: Foot posture is associated with kinematics of the foot during gait: a comparison of normal, planus and cavus feet. Gait Posture 42: 42, 2015.
-
13.
Levinger P, Murley GS, Barton CJ, et al: A comparison of foot kinematics in people with normal- and flat-arched feet using the Oxford Foot Model. Gait Posture 32: 519, 2010.
-
14.
Williams DS, McClay IS, Hamill J, et al: Lower extremity kinematic and kinetic differences in runners with high and low arches. J Appl Biomech 17: 153, 2001.
-
15.
Williams DS, Davis IM, Scholz JP, et al: High-arched runners exhibit increased leg stiffness compared to low-arched runners. Gait Posture 19: 263, 2004.
-
16.
Zifchock RA, Davis I, Hillstrom H, et al: The effect of gender, age, and lateral dominance on arch height and arch stiffness. Foot Ankle Int 27: 367, 2006.
-
17.
Cornwall MW, McPoil TG: Relationship between static foot posture and foot flexibility. J Foot Ankle Res 4: 4, 2011.
-
18.
Powell DW, Queen RM, Williams DS: Arch structure is associated with unique joint work, relative joint contributions and stiffness during landing. Hum Mov Sci 49: 141, 2016.
-
19.
Becker J, James S, Wayner R, et al: Biomechanical factors associated with Achilles tendinopathy and medial tibial stress syndrome in runners. Am J Sports Med 45: 2614, 2017.
-
20.
Czerniecki JM: Foot and ankle biomechanics in walking and running: a review. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 67: 246, 1988.
-
21.
Becker J, James S, Osternig L, et al: Foot kinematics differ between runners with and without a history of navicular stress fractures. Orthop J Sports Med 6: 2325967118767363, 2018.
-
22.
Okunuki T, Koshino Y, Yamanaka M, et al: Forefoot and hindfoot kinematics in subjects with medial tibial stress syndrome during walking and running. J Orthop Res 37: 927, 2019.
-
23.
Aerts I, Cumps E, Verhagen E, et al: A systematic review of different jump-landing variables in relation to injuries. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 53: 509, 2013.
-
24.
Pothrat C, Authier G, Viehweger E, et al: One- and multi-segment foot models lead to opposite results on ankle joint kinematics during gait: implications for clinical assessment. Clin Biomech 30: 493, 2015.
-
25.
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.
-
26.
Kim H, Kipp K: Number of segments within musculoskeletal foot models influences ankle kinematics and strains of ligaments and muscles. J Orthop Res 37: 2231, 2019.
-
27.
Leardini A, Caravaggi P, Theologis T, et al: Multi-segment foot models and their use in clinical populations. Gait Posture 69: 50, 2019.
-
28.
Cowan DN, Jones BH, Robinson JR: Foot morphologic characteristics and risk of exercise-related injury. Arch Fam Med 2: 773, 1993.
-
29.
Dicharry JM, Franz JR, Della CU, et al: Differences in static and dynamic measures in evaluation of talonavicular flexibility in gait. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 39: 628, 2009.
-
30.
Aboelnasr EA, El-Talaw HA, Abdelazim FH, et al: Sensitivity and specificity of normalized truncated navicular height in assessment of static foot posture in children aged 6-12 years. Hong Kong Physiother J 39: 15, 2019.
-
31.
Leardini A, Benedetti MG, Berti L, et al: Rear-foot, mid-foot and fore-foot motion during the stance phase of gait. Gait Posture 25: 453, 2007.
-
32.
Bishop C, Paul G, Thewlis D: Recommendations for the reporting of foot and ankle models. J Biomech 45: 2185, 2012.
-
33.
Olsen MT, Bruening DA, Johnson AW, et al: The role of the midfoot in drop landings. Med Sci Sports Exerc 51: 114, 2019.
-
34.
Buldt AK, Murley GS, Levinger P, et al: Are clinical measures of foot posture and mobility associated with foot kinematics when walking? J Foot Ankle Res 8: 63, 2015.
-
35.
Fukano M, Kuroyanagi Y, Fukubayasi T, et al: Three-dimensional kinematics of the talocrural and subtalar joints during drop landing. J Appl Biomech 30: 160, 2014.
-
36.
Hogg JA, Vanrenterghem J, Ackerman T, et al: Temporal kinematic differences throughout single and double-leg forward landings. J Biomech 99: 109559, 2020.
-
37.
Koshino Y, Yamanaka M, Ezawa Y, et al: Coupling motion between rearfoot and hip and knee joints during walking and single-leg landing. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 37: 75, 2017.
-
38.
Chuter VH: Relationships between foot type and dynamic rearfoot frontal plane motion. J Foot Ankle Res 3: 9, 2010.
-
39.
Kitaoka HB, Luo Z, Kura H, et al: Effect of foot orthoses on 3-dimensional kinematics of flatfoot: a cadaveric study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 83: 876, 2002.
-
40.
Hösl M, Böhm H, Multerer C, et al: Does excessive flatfoot deformity affect function? a comparison between symptomatic and asymptomatic flatfeet using the Oxford Foot Model. Gait Posture 39: 23, 2014.
-
41.
Kessler SE, Rainbow MJ, Lichtwark GA, et al: A direct comparison of biplanar videoradiography and optical motion capture for foot and ankle kinematics. Front Bioeng Biotechnol 7: 199, 2019.
-
42.
Takabayashi T, Edama M, Inai T, et al: Differences in rearfoot, midfoot, and forefoot kinematics of normal foot and flatfoot during running. J Orthop Res 39: 565, 2021.
-
43.
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.
-
44.
Franklin S, Grey MJ, Heneghan N, et al: Barefoot vs common footwear: a systematic review of the kinematic, kinetic and muscle activity differences during walking. Gait Posture 42: 230, 2015.
-
45.
Han S, Lee H, Son SJ, et al: Effect of varied dorsiflexion range of motion on landing biomechanics in chronic ankle instability. Scand J Med Sci Sports 33: 1125, 2023.
-
46.
Howe LP, Bampouras TM, North J, et al: Ankle dorsiflexion range of motion is associated with kinematic but not kinetic variables related to bilateral drop-landing performance at various drop heights. Hum Mov Sci 64: 320, 2019.
Foot Flexibility and Alignment Are Weakly Correlated with Multisegment Foot Kinematics During the Landing Task
Department of Social and Human Sciences, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan.
Search for other papers by Yuya Ezawa in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Yuta Koshino in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Masanori Yamanaka in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Research Organization of Science and Technology, Ritsumeikan University, Kusatsu, Japan.
Institute of Life Innovation Studies, Toyo University, Tokyo, Japan.
Graduate School of Sport Sciences, Waseda University, Tokorozawa, Japan.
Search for other papers by Takumi Okunuki in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Mina Samukawa in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Takeo Maruyama in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Harukazu Tohyama in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Background: Flat feet show increased foot motion during dynamic tasks. Although the increased motion is one of the risk factors for sports-related injuries, few studies have investigated how foot flexibility affects foot kinematics during landing. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between foot alignment, foot flexibility, and multisegment foot kinematics during a double-leg landing task in healthy participants.
Methods: Thirty-eight healthy volunteers (50% female) participated in this study. Their mean ± SD age was 22.0 ± 1.3 years; height, 166.1 ± 8.9 cm; and mass, 57.5 ± 8.8 kg. Foot alignment and flexibility were assessed using normalized navicular height truncated (NNHt) and the navicular drop (ND) test, respectively. A multisegment foot model was used to record shank, rearfoot, midfoot, and forefoot motion during drop landing from a height of 30 cm. Peak angle and range of motion were measured for each segment from the initial contact to 200 msec after landing. The relationships between NNHt, ND, and foot kinematics were explored.
Results: The NNHt was significantly correlated with peak rearfoot eversion angle (r = −0.353). The ND test values were significantly correlated with midfoot dorsiflexion and forefoot inversion excursion (r = 0.364 and 0.356, respectively). No significant correlation was found for the other kinematic outcomes.
Conclusions: Foot alignment and flexibility should be evaluated separately because these foot measurements were correlated with different foot motions. However, it may be difficult to predict foot motion during the landing task by evaluating foot alignment and flexibility.
advertising
