advertising
-
1
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. .
-
2
Smith TA, Cashman TM: The incidence of injury in light infantry soldiers. .Mil Med 167::104. ,2002. .
-
3
Jones BH, Knapik JJ: Physical training and exercise-related injuries: surveillance, research and injury prevention in military populations. .Sports Med 27::111. ,1999. .
-
4
Burns J, Keenan AM, Redmond A: Foot type and overuse injury in triathletes. .JAPMA 95::235. ,2005. .
-
5
Bennett JE, Reinking MF, Pluemer B, et al: Factors contributing to the development of medial tibial stress syndrome in high school runners. .J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 31::504. ,2001. .
-
6
Montgomery LC, Nelson FR, Norton JP, et al: Orthopedic history and examination in the etiology of overuse injuries. .Med Sci Sports 21::237. ,1989. .
-
7
Matheson GO, Clement DB, McKenzie DC, et al: Stress fractures in athletes: a study of 320 cases. .Am J Sports Med 15::46. ,1987. .
-
8
Gellman R, Burns S: Walking aches and running pains: injuries of the foot and ankle. .Prim Care 23::263. ,1996. .
-
9
Cowan DN, Jones BH, Robinson JR: Foot morphologic characteristics and risk of exercise-related injury. .Arch Fam Med 2::773. ,1993. .
-
10
Giladi M, Milgrom C, Stein M: The low arch, a protective factor in stress fractures: a prospective study of 295 military recruits. .Orthop Rev 14::709. ,1985. .
-
11
Williams DS, McClay IS, Hamill J: Arch structure and injury patterns in runners. .Clin Biomech 16::341. ,2001. .
-
12
Knapik J, Feltwell D, Canham-Chervak M, et al: Evaluation of Injury Rates During Implementation of the Fort Drum Running Shoe Injury Prevention Program, US Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine, Aberdeen Proving Grounds, MD. ,2001. .
-
13
Keenan AM, Redmond AC, Horton M, et al: The Foot Posture Index: Rasch analysis of a novel, foot-specific outcome measure. .Arch Phys Med Rehabil 88::88. ,2007. .
-
14
Redmond AC, Crosbie J, Ouvrier RA: Development and validation of a novel rating system for scoring standing foot posture: the Foot Posture Index. .Clin Biomech 21::89. ,2006. .
-
15
Clarke HH: An objective method of measuring the height of the longitudinal arch in foot examinations. .Res Q Exerc Sport 4::99. ,1933. .
-
16
Williams DS, McClay IS: Measurements used to characterize the foot and the medial longitudinal arch: reliability and validity. .Phys Ther 80::864. ,2000. .
-
17
Butler RJ, Davis IS, Hamill J: Interaction of arch type and footwear on running mechanics. .Am J Sports Med 34::1998. ,2006. .
-
18
Reinschmidt C, Nigg BM: Current issues in the design of running and court shoes. .Sportverletz Sportschaden 14::71. ,2000. .
-
19
Clarke TE, Frederick EC, Hamill CL: The effects of shoe design parameters on rearfoot control in running. .Med Sci Sports Exerc 15::376. ,1983. .
-
20
Stacoff A, Reinschmidt C, Nigg BM, et al: Effects of shoe sole construction on skeletal motion during running. .Med Sci Sports 33::311. ,2001. .
-
21
Heil B: Running shoe design and selection related to lower limb biomechanics. .Physiotherapy 78::406. ,1992. .
-
22
DeWit B, DeClerq D, Lenoir M: The effect of varying midsole hardness on impact forces and foot motion during foot contact in running. .J Appl Biomech 11::395. ,1995. .
-
23
Hamill J, Bates BT, Holt KG: Timing of lower extremity joint actions during treadmill running. .Med Sci Sports 24::807. ,1992. .
-
24
Perry SD, Lafortune MA: Influences of inversion/ eversion of the foot upon impact loading during locomotion. .Clin Biomech 10::253. ,1995. .
-
25
Viswanathan V, Sivagami M, Seena R, et al: Increased forefoot to rearfoot plantar pressure ratio in South Indian patients with diabetic foot ulceration. .Diabet Med 21::396. ,2004. .
-
26
Praet SF, Louwerens JW: The influence of shoe design on plantar pressures in neuropathic feet. .Diabetes Care 26::441. ,2003. .
-
27
Perry JE, Ulbrecht JS, Derr JA, et al: The use of running shoes to reduce plantar pressures in patients who have diabetes. .J Bone Joint Surg Am 77::1819. ,1995. .
-
28
Chu WC, Lee SH, Chu W, et al: The use of arch index to characterize arch height: a digital image processing approach. .IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 42::1088. ,1995. .
-
29
Hsiao H, Guan J, Weatherly M: Accuracy and precision of two in-shoe pressure measurement systems. .Ergonomics 45::537. ,2002. .
-
30
Burnfield JM, Few CD, Mohamed OS, et al: The influence of walking speed and footwear on plantar pressures in older adults. .Clin Biomech 19::78. ,2004. .
-
31
Kernozek TW, LaMott EE, Dancisak MJ: Reliability of an in-shoe pressure measurement system during treadmill walking. .Foot Ankle Int 17::204. ,1996. .
-
32
Cavanagh PR, Rodgers MM: The arch index: a useful measure from footprints. .J Biomech 20::547. ,1987. .
-
33
Cavanagh PR, Rodgers MM, Iiboshi A: Pressure distribution under symptom-free feet during barefoot standing. .Foot Ankle 7::262. ,1987. .
-
34
Chu WC, Lee SH, Chu W, et al: The use of arch index to characterize arch height: a digital image processing approach. .IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 42::1088. ,1995. .
-
35
Portney LG, Watkins MP: Foundations of Clinical Research: Applications to Practice, p 439, Appleton & Lange, Norwalk, CT. ,1993. .
-
36
Boozer MH, Finch A, Waite LR: Investigation of the relationship between arch height and maximum pronation angle during running. .Biomed Sci Instrum 38::203. ,2002. .
-
37
Mann RA, Hagy J: Biomechanics of walking, running, and sprinting. .Am J Sports Med 8::345. ,1980. .
-
38
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. .
-
39
McPoil TG, Cornwall MW: Use of the longitudinal arch angle to predict dynamic foot posture in walking. .JAPMA 95::114. ,2005. .
-
40
Ounpuu S: The biomechanics of walking and running. .Clin Sports Med 13::843. ,1994. .
Effect of Running Shoe Type on the Distribution and Magnitude of Plantar Pressures in Individuals with Low- or High-Arched Feet
Search for other papers by Joseph M. Molloy in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Douglas S. Christie in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Deydre S. Teyhen in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Nancy S. Yeykal in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Bradley S. Tragord in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Matthew S. Neal in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Eric S. Nelson in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Thomas McPoil in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Background: Research addressing the effect of running shoe type on the low- or high-arched foot during gait is limited. We sought 1) to analyze mean plantar pressure and mean contact area differences between low- and high-arched feet across three test conditions, 2) to determine which regions of the foot (rearfoot, midfoot, and forefoot) contributed to potential differences in mean plantar pressure and mean contact area, and 3) to determine the association between the static arch height index and the dynamic modified arch index.
Methods: Plantar pressure distributions for 75 participants (40 low arched and 35 high arched) were analyzed across three conditions (nonshod, motion control running shoes, and cushioning running shoes) during treadmill walking.
Results: In the motion control and cushioning shoe conditions, mean plantar contact area increased in the midfoot (28% for low arched and 68% for high arched), whereas mean plantar pressure decreased by approximately 30% relative to the nonshod condition. There was moderate to good negative correlation between the arch height index and the modified arch index.
Conclusions: Cushioning and motion control running shoes tend to increase midfoot mean plantar contact area while decreasing mean plantar pressure across the low- or high-arched foot. (J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 99(4): 330–338, 2009)
advertising
