advertising
-
1
American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons: Joint Motion: Method of Measuring and Recording, Chicago, 1963..
-
2
Root M, Orien W, Weed J, et al: Biomechanical Examination of the Foot, Clinical Biomechanics Corp, Los Angeles, 1971..
-
3
Root M, Orien W, Weed, JH: Normal and Abnormal Function of the Foot, Clinical Biomechanics, Vol 2, Clinical Biomechanics Corp, Los Angeles, 1977..
-
4
Bailey DS, Perillo JT, Forman M: Subtalar joint neutral. .JAPMA 74::59. ,1984. .
-
5
Elveru RA, Rothstein JM, Lamb RL, et al: Methods for taking subtalar joint measurements: a clinical report. .Phys Ther 68::678. ,1988. .
-
6
Wernick J, Langer S: A Practical Manual for a Basic Approach to Biomechanics, Langer Acrylic Laboratory, New York, 1972..
-
7
Hlavac HF: Differences in x-ray findings with varied positioning of the foot. .JAPA 57::465. ,1967. .
-
9
James SL, Bates BT, Osternig LR: Injuries to runners. .Am J Sports Med 6::40. ,1978. .
-
10
McPoil TG, Brocato RS: “The Foot and Ankle: Biomechanical Evaluation and Treatment,” in Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy, ed by JA Gould, GJ Davies, p 313, CV Mosby, St Louis, MO, 1985..
-
11
Gray G: Functional Locomotor Biomechanical Examination, American Physical Rehabilitation Network, Toledo, OH, 1984..
-
12
Cook A, Gorman I, Morris J: Evaluation of the neutral position of the subtalar joint. .JAPMA 78::449. ,1988. .
-
13
Milgrom C, Giladi M, Simkin A, et al: The normal range of subtalar inversion and eversion in young males as measured by three different techniques. .Foot Ankle 6::143. ,1985. .
-
14
Picciano AM, Megan SR, Worrell T: Reliability of open and closed kinetic chain subtalar joint neutral positions and navicular drop test. .J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 18::553. ,1993. .
-
15
Diamond JE, Mueller MJ, Delitto A, et al: Reliability of a diabetic foot evaluation. .Phys Ther 69::797. ,1989. .
-
16
Lattanza L, Gray G, Kantner R: Closed versus open kinematic chain measurements of subtalar eversion. .J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 9::310. ,1988. .
-
17
Smith-Oricchio K, Harris B: Interrater reliability of subtalar neutral, calcaneal inversion and eversion. .J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 12::10. ,1990. .
-
18
Pierrynowski MR, Smith SB, Mlynarczyk JH: Proficiency of foot care specialists to place the rearfoot at subtalar neutral. .JAPMA 86::217. ,1996. .
-
19
Boone DC, Azen SP, Lin C-M, et al: Reliability of goniometric measurements. .Phys Ther 58::1355. ,1978. .
-
20
Elveru RA, Rothstein JM, Lamb RL: Goniometric reliability in a clinical setting: subtalar and ankle joint measurements. .Phys Ther 68::672. ,1988. .
-
21
Sell KC, Verity TM, Worrell TW, et al: Two measurement techniques for assessing subtalar joint position: a reliability study. .J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 19::162. ,1994. .
-
22
Shrout PE, Fleiss JL: Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. .Psychol Bull 86::420. ,1979. .
-
23
Ekstrand J, Wiktorsson M, Oberg B, et al: Lower extremity goniometric measurements: a study to determine their reliability. .Arch Phys Med Rehabil 63::171. ,1982. .
-
24
Pierrynowski MR, Smith SB: Rear foot inversion/eversion during gait relative to the subtalar joint neutral position. .Foot Ankle Int 17::406. ,1996. .
-
25
LaPointe SJ: “The Reliability of Subtalar Joint Neutral and Range of Motion Measurements,” in Reconstructive Surgery of the Foot and Leg: Update ’98, ed by SJ Miller, KT Mahan, GV Yu, The Podiatry Institute, Tucker, GA, 1998..
The Reliability of Clinical and Caliper-Based Calcaneal Bisection Measurements
Search for other papers by Stephan J. LaPointe in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Charles Peebles in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Aprajita Nakra in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Howard Hillstrom in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
The measurements of subtalar joint neutral position and hindfoot range of motion have been shown to be unreliable. The first step in making these measurements is to determine the calcaneal bisection. This study examines the reliability of bisecting the calcaneus with digital linear calipers. Five trials on each of six cadavers resulted in a mean absolute angular difference of 0.60° (SD ±1.17°). These results were then compared with results from the typical visual method used clinically. Three raters each performed five trials on six cadavers. Visual bisection was more variable, with a mean absolute error of 3.61° (±3.13°). A mean error of 6° (±1°) is certainly possible when the heel is visually bisected. It was determined that the caliper bisection was a valid technique for bisection of the heel, but that clinical visual bisection was not. (J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 91(3): 121-126, 2001)
advertising
advertising
