Foot kinematics in patients with two patterns of pathological plantar hyperkeratosis

Background: The Root paradigm of foot function continues to underpin the majority of clinical foot biomechanics practice and foot orthotic therapy. There are great number of assumptions in this popular paradigm, most of which have not been thoroughly tested. One component supposes that patterns of plantar pressure and associated hyperkeratosis lesions should be associated with distinct rearfoot, mid foot, first metatarsal and hallux kinematic patterns. Our aim was to investigate the extent to which this was true. Methods: Twenty-seven subjects with planter pathological hyperkeratosis were recruited into one of two groups. Group 1 displayed pathological plantar hyperkeratosis only under metatarsal heads 2, 3 and 4 (n = 14). Group 2 displayed pathological plantar hyperkeratosis only under the 1st and 5th metatarsal heads (n = 13). Foot kinematics were measured using reflective markers on the leg, heel, midfoot, first metatarsal and hallux. Results: The kinematic data failed to identify distinct differences between these two groups of subjects, however there were several subtle (generally <3°) differences in kinematic data between these groups. Group 1 displayed a less everted heel, a less abducted heel and a more plantarflexed heel compared to group 2, which is contrary to the Root paradigm. Conclusions: There was some evidence of small differences between planter pathological hyperkeratosis groups. Nevertheless, there was too much similarity between the kinematic data displayed in each group to classify them as distinct foot types as the current clinical paradigm proposes

Reliability and normative values for the foot mobility magnitude: a composite measure of vertical and medial-lateral mobility of the midfoot

Background: A study was conducted to determine the reliability and minimal detectable change for a new composite measure of the vertical and medial-lateral mobility of the midfoot called the foot mobility magnitude

Foot posture in people with medial compartment knee osteoarthritis

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Foot posture has long been considered to contribute to the development of lower limb musculoskeletal conditions as it may alter the mechanical alignment and dynamic function of the lower limb. This study compared foot posture in people with and without medial compartment knee osteoarthritis (OA) using a range of clinical foot measures. The reliability of the foot measures was also assessed.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The foot posture of 32 patients with clinically and radiographically-confirmed OA predominantly in the medial compartment of the knee and 28 asymptomatic age-matched healthy controls was investigated using the foot posture index (FPI), vertical navicular height and drop, and the arch index. Independent t tests and effect size (Cohen's d) were used to investigate the differences between the groups in the foot posture measurements.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Significant differences were found between the control and the knee OA groups in relation to the FPI (1.35 ± 1.43 vs. 2.46 ± 2.18, p = 0.02; <it>d </it>= 0.61, medium effect size), navicular drop (0.02 ± 0.01 vs. 0.03 ± 0.01, p = 0.01; <it>d </it>= 1.02, large effect size) and the arch index (0.22 ± 0.04 vs. 0.26 ± 0.04, p = 0.04; <it>d </it>= 1.02, large effect size). No significant difference was found for vertical navicular height (0.24 ± 0.03 vs. 0.23 ± 0.03, p = 0.54; <it>d </it>= 0.04, negligible effect size).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>People with medial compartment knee OA exhibit a more pronated foot type compared to controls. It is therefore recommended that the assessment of patients with knee OA in clinical practice should include simple foot measures, and that the potential influence of foot structure and function on the efficacy of foot orthoses in the management of medial compartment knee OA be further investigated.</p

Inter-assessor reliability of practice based biomechanical assessment of the foot and ankle

Background There is no consensus on which protocols should be used to assess foot and lower limb biomechanics in clinical practice. The reliability of many assessments has been questioned by previous research. The aim of this investigation was to (i) identify (through consensus) what biomechanical examinations are used in clinical practice and (ii) evaluate the inter-assessor reliability of some of these examinations. Methods Part1: Using a modified Delphi technique 12 podiatrists derived consensus on the biomechanical examinations used in clinical practice. Part 2: Eleven podiatrists assessed 6 participants using a subset of the assessment protocol derived in Part 1. Examinations were compared between assessors. Results Clinicians choose to estimate rather than quantitatively measure foot position and motion. Poor inter-assessor reliability was recorded for all examinations. Intra-class correlation coefficient values (ICC) for relaxed calcaneal stance position were less than 0.23 and were less than 0.14 for neutral calcaneal stance position. For the examination of ankle joint dorsiflexion, ICC values suggest moderate reliability (less than 0.61). The results of a random effects ANOVA highlight that participant (up to 5.7°), assessor (up to 5.8°) and random (upto 5.7°) error all contribute to the total error (up to 9.5° for relaxed calcaneal stance position, up to 10.7° for the examination of ankle joint dorsiflexion). Kappa Fleiss values for categorisation of first ray position and mobility were less than 0.05 and for limb length assessment less than 0.02, indicating slight agreement. Conclusion Static biomechanical assessment of the foot, leg and lower limb is an important protocol in clinical practice, but the key examinations used to make inferences about dynamic foot function and to determine orthotic prescription are unreliable