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

Inter- and intra-rater reliabilities of the Beighton Score compared to the Contompasis Score to assess Generalised Joint Hypermobility

Objectives: Generalized Joint Hypermobility [GJH] is a common connective tissue disorder associated with a range of musculoskeletal complaints. An effective screening tool to assess GJH may influence our understanding and choice of management. Diagnosis is clinical, using tools such as the Beighton Hypermobility Score and the Contompasis Scoring System. The comparable reliability of these tools has not been previously reported. The aim of the present study was to compare the intra- and the inter-rater reliability of the Beighton Score to the Contompasis Score to assess GJH. Methods: This was an observational study assessing 36 pain-free participants; 27 females and nine males; aged 18–32 years. Participants were assessed in random order, by two researchers over two sessions to determine intra- and inter-rater analyses. Intraclass Correlation Coefficient [ICC] and weighted Kappa statistics were used to calculate the level of agreement. Results: The intra- [ICC: 0.71–0.82] and the inter- [ICC: 0.72–0.80] rater reliability of the Beighton Score was substantial to almost perfect. The Contompasis Score displayed substantial to almost perfect intra-rater [ICC: 0.73–0.82] reliability and moderate to substantial inter-rater [ICC: 0.58–0.62] reliability. Conclusions: The present study provides an indication of the measurement capabilities of the Beighton and Contompasis Scores. The Beighton score appears to be superior compared with the Contompasis score particularly based on inter-rater reliability

Reliability of two goniometric methods of measuring active inversion and eversion range of motion at the ankle

BACKGROUND: Active inversion and eversion ankle range of motion (ROM) is widely used to evaluate treatment effect, however the error associated with the available measurement protocols is unknown. This study aimed to establish the reliability of goniometry as used in clinical practice. METHODS: 30 subjects (60 ankles) with a wide variety of ankle conditions participated in this study. Three observers, with different skill levels, measured active inversion and eversion ankle ROM three times on each of two days. Measurements were performed with subjects positioned (a) sitting and (b) prone. Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC([2,1])) were calculated to determine intra- and inter-observer reliability. RESULTS: Within session intra-observer reliability ranged from ICC([2,1] )0.82 to 0.96 and between session intra-observer reliability ranged from ICC([2,1] )0.42 to 0.80. Reliability was similar for the sitting and the prone positions, however, between sessions, inversion measurements were more reliable than eversion measurements. Within session inter-observer measurements in sitting were more reliable than in prone and inversion measurements were more reliable than eversion measurements. CONCLUSION: Our findings show that ankle inversion and eversion ROM can be measured with high to very high reliability by the same observer within sessions and with low to moderate reliability by different observers within a session. The reliability of measures made by the same observer between sessions varies depending on the direction, being low to moderate for eversion measurements and moderate to high for inversion measurements in both positions

Comparison of foot orthoses made by podiatrists, pedorthists and orthotists regarding plantar pressure reduction in The Netherlands

BACKGROUND: There is a need for evidence of clinical effectiveness of foot orthosis therapy. This study evaluated the effect of foot orthoses made by ten podiatrists, ten pedorthists and eleven orthotists on plantar pressure and walking convenience for three patients with metatarsalgia. Aims were to assess differences and variability between and within the disciplines. The relationship between the importance of pressure reduction and the effect on peak pressure was also evaluated. METHODS: Each therapist examined all three patients and was asked to rate the 'importance of pressure reduction' through a visual analogue scale. The orthoses were evaluated twice in two sessions while the patient walked on a treadmill. Plantar pressures were recorded with an in-sole measuring system. Patients scored walking convenience per orthosis. The effects of the orthoses on peak pressure reduction were calculated for the whole plantar surface of the forefoot and six regions: big toe and metatarsal one to five. RESULTS: Within each discipline there was an extensive variation in construction of the orthoses and achieved peak pressure reductions. Pedorthists and orthotists achieved greater maximal peak pressure reductions calculated over the whole forefoot than podiatrists: 960, 1020 and 750 kPa, respectively (p < .001). This was also true for the effect in the regions with the highest baseline peak pressures and walking convenience rated by patients A and B. There was a weak relationship between the 'importance of pressure reduction' and the achieved pressure reduction for orthotists, but no relationship for podiatrists and pedorthotists. CONCLUSION: The large variation for various aspects of foot orthoses therapy raises questions about a consistent use of concepts for pressures management within the professional groups

A case-series study to explore the efficacy of foot orthoses in treating first metatarsophalangeal joint pain

Background: First metatarsophalangeal (MTP) joint pain is a common foot complaint which is often considered to be a consequence of altered mechanics. Foot orthoses are often prescribed to reduce 1 stMTP joint pain with the aim of altering dorsiflexion at propulsion. This study explores changes in 1 stMTP joint pain and kinematics following the use of foot orthoses.Methods: The effect of modified, pre-fabricated foot orthoses (X-line ®) were evaluated in thirty-two patients with 1 stMTP joint pain of mechanical origin. The primary outcome was pain measured at baseline and 24 weeks using the pain subscale of the foot function index (FFI). In a small sub-group of patients (n = 9), the relationship between pain and kinematic variables was explored with and without their orthoses, using an electromagnetic motion tracking (EMT) system.Results: A significant reduction in pain was observed between baseline (median = 48 mm) and the 24 week endpoint (median = 14.50 mm, z = -4.88, p &lt; 0.001). In the sub-group analysis, we found no relationship between pain reduction and 1 stMTP joint motion, and no significant differences were found between the 1 stMTP joint maximum dorsiflexion or ankle/subtalar complex maximum eversion, with and without the orthoses.Conclusions: This observational study demonstrated a significant decrease in 1 stMTP joint pain associated with the use of foot orthoses. Change in pain was not shown to be associated with 1 stMTP joint dorsiflexion nor with altered ankle/subtalar complex eversion. Further research into the effect of foot orthoses on foot function is indicated. © 2010 Welsh et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd

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

Are clinical measures of foot posture and mobility associated with foot kinematics when walking?

Background: There is uncertainty as to which foot posture measures are the most valid in terms of predicting kinematics of the foot. The aim of this study was to investigate the associations of clinical measures of static foot posture and mobility with foot kinematics during barefoot walking. Method: Foot posture and mobility were measured in 97 healthy adults (46 males, 51 females; mean age 24.4 ± 6.2 years). Foot posture was assessed using the 6-item Foot Posture Index (FPI), Arch Index (AI), Normalised Navicular Height (NNHt) and Normalised Dorsal Arch Height (DAH). Foot mobility was evaluated using the Foot Mobility Magnitude (FMM) measure. Following this, a five-segment foot model was used to measure tri-planar motion of the rearfoot, midfoot, medial forefoot, lateral forefoot and hallux. Peak and range of motion variables during load acceptance and midstance/propulsion phases of gait were extracted for all relative segment to segment motion calculations. Hierarchical regression analyses were conducted, adjusting for potential confounding variables. Results: The degree of variance in peak and range of motion kinematic variables that was independently explained by foot posture measures was as follows: FPI 5 to 22 %, NNHt 6 to 20 %, AI 7 to 13 %, DAH 6 to 8 %, and FMM 8 %. The FPI was retained as a significant predictor across the most number of kinematic variables. However, the amount of variance explained by the FPI for individual kinematic variables did not exceed other measures. Overall, static foot posture measures were more strongly associated with kinematic variables than foot mobility measures and explained more variation in peak variables compared to range of motion variables. Conclusions: Foot posture measures can explain only a small amount of variation in foot kinematics. Static foot posture measures, and in particular the FPI, were more strongly associated with foot kinematics compared with foot mobility measures. These findings suggest that foot kinematics cannot be accurately inferred from clinical observations of foot posture alone