advertising
-
1
Schuster RO: A history of orthopedics in podiatry. .JAPMA 64::332. ,1974. .
-
2
Landorf KB, Keenan AM: Efficacy of foot orthoses: what does the literature tell us? JAPMA 90: 149. ,2000. .
-
3
D’Ambrosia RD: Orthotic devices in running injuries. .Clin Sports Med 4::611. ,1985. .
-
4
Dugan RC, D’Ambrosia RD: The effect of orthotics on the treatment of selected running injuries. .Foot Ankle 6::313. ,1986. .
-
5
Donatelli R, Hurlbert C, Conway D, et al: Biomechanical foot orthoses: a retrospective study. .J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 10::205. ,1988. .
-
6
Gross ML, Davlin LB, Evanski PM: Effectiveness of orthotic shoe inserts in the long distance runner. .Am J Sports Med 19::409. ,1991. .
-
7
Moraros J, Hodge W: Orthotic survey: preliminary results. .JAPMA 83::139. ,1993. .
-
8
Mejjad O, Vittecoq O, Pouplin S, et al: Foot orthotics decrease pain but do not improve gait in rheumatoid arthritis patients. .Joint Bone Spine 71::542. ,2004. .
-
9
Walter JH Jr, Ng G, Stoltz JJ: A patient satisfaction survey on prescription custom-molded foot orthoses. .JAPMA 94::363. ,2004. .
-
10
Powell M, Seid M, Szer IS: Efficacy of custom foot orthotics in improving pain and functional status in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a randomized trial. .J Rheumatol 32::943. ,2005. .
-
11
Chalmers AC, Busby C, Goyert J, et al: Metatarsalgia and rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized, single blind, sequential trial comparing two types of foot orthoses and supportive shoes. .J Rheumatol 27::1643. ,2000. .
-
12
Gross MT, Byers JM, Krafft JL, et al: The impact of custom semi-rigid foot orthotics on pain and disability for individuals with plantar fasciitis. .J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 32::149. ,2002. .
-
13
Bates BT, Osternig LR, Mason B, et al: Foot orthotic devices to modify selected aspects of lower extremity mechanics. .Am J Sport Med 7::328. ,1979. .
-
14
Smith LS, Clarke TE, Hamill CL, et al: The effects of soft and semi-rigid orthoses upon rearfoot movement in running. .JAPMA 76::227. ,1986. .
-
15
Nawoczenski DA, Cook TM, Saltzman CL: The effect of foot orthotics on three-dimensional kinematics of the leg and rearfoot during running. .J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 21::317. ,1995. .
-
16
Johanson MA, Donatelli R, Wooden MJ, et al: Effects of three different posting methods on controlling abnormal subtalar pronation. .Phys Ther 74::149. ,1994. .
-
17
Eng JJ, Pierrynowski MR: The effect of soft orthotics on three-dimensional lower-limb kinematics during walking and running. .Phys Ther 74::836. ,1994. .
-
18
Genova JM, Gross MT: Effect of foot orthotics on calcaneal eversion during standing and treadmill walking for subjects with abnormal pronation. .J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 30::664. ,2000. .
-
19
Woodburn J, Helliwell PS, Barker S: Changes in 3D joint kinematics support the continuous use of orthoses in the management of painful rearfoot deformity in rheumatoid arthritis. .J Rheumatol 30::2356. ,2003. .
-
20
Nester CJ, van der Linden ML, Bowker P: Effect of foot orthoses on the kinematics and kinetics of normal walking gait. .Gait Posture 17::180. ,2003. .
-
21
Mundermann A, Nigg BM, Humble RN, et al: Foot orthoses affect lower extremity kinematics and kinetics during running. .Clin Biomech 18::254. ,2003. .
-
22
Branthwaite HR, Payton CJ, Chockalingam N: The effect of simple insoles on three-dimensional foot motion during normal walking. .Clin Biomech 19::972. ,2004. .
-
23
Stacoff A, Reinschmidt C, Nigg BM, et al: Effects of foot orthoses on skeletal motion during running. .Clin Biomech 15::54. ,2000. .
-
24
Stackhouse CL, Davis IM, Hamill J: Orthotic intervention in forefoot and rearfoot strike running patterns. .Clin Biomech 19::64. ,2004. .
-
25
McPoil TG, Cornwall MW: The effect of foot orthoses on transverse tibial rotation during walking. .JAPMA 90::2. ,2000. .
-
26
Nester CJ, Hutchins S, Bowker P: Effect of foot orthoses on rearfoot complex kinematics during walking gait. .Foot Ankle Int 22::133. ,2001. .
-
27
Payne CB, Oates M, Noakes H: Static stance response to different types of foot orthoses. .JAPMA 93::492. ,2003. .
-
28
Williams DS, Davis IM, Baitch SP: Effect of inverted orthoses on lower-extremity mechanics in runners. .Med Sci Sports Exerc 35::2060. ,2003. .
-
29
Nigg BN, Stergiou P, Cole G, et al: Effect of shoe insert on kinematics, center of pressure and leg joint moments during running. .Med Sci Sports Exerc 35::314. ,2003. .
-
30
Kitaoka HB, Luo ZP, Kura H, et al: Effect of foot orthoses on 3-dimensional kinematics of flatfoot: a cadaveric study. .Arch Phys Med Rehabil 83::876. ,2002. .
-
31
Nigg BM, Khan A, Fisher V, et al: Effect of shoe insert construction on foot and leg movement. .Med Sci Sports Exerc 30::550. ,1998. .
-
32
Butler RJ, Davis IM, Laughton CM, et al: Dual-function foot orthosis: effect on shock and control of rearfoot motion. .Foot Ankle Int 24::410. ,2003. .
-
33
Kirby KA: Foot and Lower Extremity Biomechanics: A Ten Year Collection of Precision Intricast Newsletters. Precision Intricast, Inc, Payson, Arizona. ,1997. .
-
34
Jones LJ: “Prescription writing for functional and accommodative foot orthoses,” in Clinical Biomechanics of the Lower Extremities, ed by RL Valmassy, p 295, Mosby Inc, St. Louis. ,1996. .
-
35
Anthony RJ: The Manufacture and Use of the Functional Foot Orthosis. Karger, Basel, Switzerland. ,1991. .
-
36
Heiderscheit B, Hamill J, Tiberio D: A biomechanical perspective: do foot orthoses work? Br J Sports Med 35: 4. ,2001. .
-
37
Kirby KA: Subtalar joint axis location and rotational equilibrium theory of foot function. .JAPMA 91::465. ,2001. .
-
38
Payne CB, Munteanu S, Miller K: Position of the subtalar joint axis and resistance of the rearfoot to supination. .JAPMA 93::131. ,2003. .
-
39
Kirby KA: Methods for determination of positional variations in the subtalar joint axis. .JAPMA 77::228. ,1987. .
-
40
Kirby KA: Rotational equilibrium across the subtalar joint axis. .JAPMA 79::1. ,1989. .
-
41
Gheluwe BV, Kirby KA, Roosen P, et al: Reliability and accuracy of biomechanical measurements of the lower extremities. .JAPMA 92::317. ,2002. .
-
42
Smith-Oricchio K, Harris BA: Intrarrater reliability of subtalar neutral, calcaneal inversion and eversion. .J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 12::10. ,1990. .
-
43
Sell KE, Verity TM, Worrell TW, et al: Two measurements techniques for assessing subtalar joint position: a reliability study. .J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 19::162. ,1994. .
Static Response of Maximally Pronated and Nonmaximally Pronated Feet to Frontal Plane Wedging of Foot Orthoses
Search for other papers by Javier Pascual Huerta in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Juan Manuel Ropa Moreno in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Kevin A. Kirby in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Background: Research on foot orthoses has shown that their effect on the kinematics of the rearfoot is variable, with no consistent patterns of changes being demonstrated. It has also been hypothesized that the mechanical effect of foot orthoses could be subject specific. The purpose of our study was to determine if maximally pronated feet have a different response to frontal plane wedging of foot orthoses than do nonmaximally pronated feet during static stance.
Methods: One hundred six feet of 53 healthy asymptomatic subjects were divided into two groups (maximally pronated and nonmaximally pronated) on the basis of their subtalar joint rotational position during relaxed bipedal stance. Functional foot orthoses were constructed for each subject and the relaxed calcaneal stance position was measured while standing on five separate frontal plane orthosis wedging conditions, 10° valgus, 5° valgus, no wedging, 5° varus, and 10° varus, to assess changes in calcaneal position.
Results: Relative to the no-wedging condition, there were statistically significant differences (P < .05) in calcaneal position between the maximally pronated and the nonmaximally pronated feet with the 10° valgus and the 10° varus wedging conditions. No significant differences in calcaneal position were found with the 5° varus and the 5° valgus wedging conditions.
Conclusions: Our study shows that the response to foot orthoses is variable between individuals. Maximally pronated subjects do not exhibit the same response to frontal plane wedging of foot orthoses as do nonmaximally pronated with 10° wedging. Intrinsic biomechanical factors such as subtalar joint position may influence the response to foot orthoses. (J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 99(1): 13–19, 2009)
advertising
