File
T. Ishikawa1, A. Oda1, H. Yokoyama2, K. Hukuda3,1, M. Kato1
1Hirosaki University, Graduate School of Health Sciences, Hirosaki, Japan, 2Hakodate Medical Association Nursing and Rehabilitation Academy, Physical Therapy, Hakodate, Japan, 3Hirosaki Memorial Hospital, Department of Rehabilitation, Hirosaki, Japan
Background: Foot alignment and foot kinematics may contribute to musculoskeletal injuries in the lower limbs. Thus, the improvement of the foot alignment and foot kinematics is important. Especially pronation/supination of the rearfoot are important factor for foot assessment, but it is difficult to change rearfoot alignment during walking. Foot progression angle can be changed consciously, therefore physiotherapists often give instructions for changing foot progression angle. It is thought move linkage between rearfoot supination/supination and foot progression angle, however it is not revealed changing foot progression angle affect the foot kinematics.
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of different foot progression angle of the foot at walking.
Methods: Nine healthy university students participated in this study. All participants had no history of surgery or fracture in the lower limbs within the past 6 months, and had no musculoskeletal injuries.
A three-dimensional motion analysis system (Vicon Nexus; Vicon Motion System, Oxford, United Kingdom) with eight infrared cameras and three force plate (400×600mm; AMTI, Watertown, MA, USA) were used for motion analysis during walking. Infrared-reflective markers (9-mm diameter) were placed according to the Oxford foot model and the Plug-in-Gait lower model.
Participants were required to walk three conditions, inward (IN), outward (OUT), control (CON). The condition was defined by foot progression angle at walking. Subjects were instructed to inward or outward at foot progression angle in IN and OUT conditions. In CON, Subjects walked self-selected foot progression angle. Subjects performed five successful trials for each task. All trials were required to walk at cadence 110step/min.
The data were extracted from initial contact to toe off during walking. The time of Initial contact was defined as the time at which the force first exceed 10 N, while toe-off was defined as the time at which force fell below 10N. Rearfoot angle, forefoot angle, ankle joint moment were quantified.
Statistical analysis of the data were using Tukey test comparisons for three conditions. P values of less than 5% were considered statistically significant.
A three-dimensional motion analysis system (Vicon Nexus; Vicon Motion System, Oxford, United Kingdom) with eight infrared cameras and three force plate (400×600mm; AMTI, Watertown, MA, USA) were used for motion analysis during walking. Infrared-reflective markers (9-mm diameter) were placed according to the Oxford foot model and the Plug-in-Gait lower model.
Participants were required to walk three conditions, inward (IN), outward (OUT), control (CON). The condition was defined by foot progression angle at walking. Subjects were instructed to inward or outward at foot progression angle in IN and OUT conditions. In CON, Subjects walked self-selected foot progression angle. Subjects performed five successful trials for each task. All trials were required to walk at cadence 110step/min.
The data were extracted from initial contact to toe off during walking. The time of Initial contact was defined as the time at which the force first exceed 10 N, while toe-off was defined as the time at which force fell below 10N. Rearfoot angle, forefoot angle, ankle joint moment were quantified.
Statistical analysis of the data were using Tukey test comparisons for three conditions. P values of less than 5% were considered statistically significant.
Results: Foot progression angle were more inward in IN than in OUT and CON. Rearfoot angle were more supination in IN than in OUT and CON at terminal stance. There was no significant difference in forefoot angle. Ankle moment were less dorsiflexion and less supination in IN than in OUT.
Conclusion(s): It is finding that changing foot progression angle changes frontal foot angle and ankle joint moment. Thus, for changing rearfoot angle and reducing ankle joint muscle load, it may be effective to change foot progression angle.
Implications: They understood the purpose of this study and agreed to participate, after that, written informed consent was obtained from each subject. Ethical approval was granted by Hirosaki University Research Ethics Committee.
Funding, acknowledgements: No funding.
Keywords: foot progression angle, gait, rearfoot
Topic: Community based rehabilitation
Did this work require ethics approval? Yes
Institution: Hirosaki University
Committee: Hirosaki University Research Ethics Committee
Ethics number: 2016-060
All authors, affiliations and abstracts have been published as submitted.
