Effects of different medial arch support heights on rearfoot kinematics

Foot orthoses are usually assumed to be effective by optimizing mechanically dynamic rearfoot configuration. However, the effect from a foot orthosis on kinematics that has been demonstrated scientifically has only been marginal. The aim of this study was to examine the effect of different heights i...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:PloS one 2017-03, Vol.12 (3), p.e0172334-e0172334
Main Authors: Wahmkow, Gunnar, Cassel, Michael, Mayer, Frank, Baur, Heiner
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adult
Analysis
Arches
Athletes
Biology and Life Sciences
Biomechanical Phenomena
Cameras
Computer and Information Sciences
Exercise Test
Feet
Female
Fitness equipment
Foot Orthoses
Gait
Gait - physiology
Gait disorders
Humans
Infrared cameras
Injuries
Kinematics
Male
Medicine
Medicine and Health Sciences
Orthopedic appliances
Orthoses
Pain
Physical Sciences
Running
Running - physiology
Sports medicine
Studies
Tibia
Tibia - physiology
Tinea Pedis
Variance analysis
Walking
Weight-Bearing - physiology
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c791t-4ae8427fba7b434cd921b755bd3f738e5e59fc3e5722054c13dba88257495e593
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c791t-4ae8427fba7b434cd921b755bd3f738e5e59fc3e5722054c13dba88257495e593
container_end_page e0172334
container_issue 3
container_start_page e0172334
container_title PloS one
container_volume 12
creator Wahmkow, Gunnar
Cassel, Michael
Mayer, Frank
Baur, Heiner
description Foot orthoses are usually assumed to be effective by optimizing mechanically dynamic rearfoot configuration. However, the effect from a foot orthosis on kinematics that has been demonstrated scientifically has only been marginal. The aim of this study was to examine the effect of different heights in medial arch-supported foot orthoses on rear foot motion during gait. Nineteen asymptomatic runners (36±11years, 180±5cm, 79±10kg; 41±22km/week) participated in the study. Trials were recorded at 3.1 mph (5 km/h) on a treadmill. Athletes walked barefoot and with 4 different not customized medial arch-supported foot orthoses of various arch heights (N:0 mm, M:30 mm, H:35 mm, E:40mm). Six infrared cameras and the `Oxford Foot Model´ were used to capture motion. The average stride in each condition was calculated from 50 gait cycles per condition. Eversion excursion and internal tibia rotation were analyzed. Descriptive statistics included calculating the mean ± SD and 95% CIs. Group differences by condition were analyzed by one factor (foot orthoses) repeated measures ANOVA (α = 0.05). Eversion excursion revealed the lowest values for N and highest for H (B:4.6°±2.2°; 95% CI [3.1;6.2]/N:4.0°±1.7°; [2.9;5.2]/M:5.2°±2.6°; [3.6;6.8]/H:6.2°±3.3°; [4.0;8.5]/E:5.1°±3.5°; [2.8;7.5]) (p>0.05). Range of internal tibia rotation was lowest with orthosis H and highest with E (B:13.3°±3.2°; 95% CI [11.0;15.6]/N:14.5°±7.2°; [9.2;19.6]/M:13.8°±5.0°; [10.8;16.8]/H:12.3°±4.3°; [9.0;15.6]/E:14.9°±5.0°; [11.5;18.3]) (p>0.05). Differences between conditions were small and the intrasubject variation high. Our results indicate that different arch support heights have no systematic effect on eversion excursion or the range of internal tibia rotation and therefore might not exert a crucial influence on rear foot alignment during gait.
doi_str_mv 10.1371/journal.pone.0172334
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_1874149995</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A483896364</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_39c15833062648e889b57291dcd30c34</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A483896364</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c791t-4ae8427fba7b434cd921b755bd3f738e5e59fc3e5722054c13dba88257495e593</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk1-L1DAUxYso7jr6DUQLgujDjE1u2iQvwrKs68DCgv9eQ5om06ydZkxS0W9vOtNdprIPSx8Skt89OTnpzbKXqFghoOjDjRt8L7vVzvV6VSCKAcij7BRxwMsKF_D4aH6SPQvhpihKYFX1NDvBDJeU4Oo0u7wwRqsYcmfyxqa5133Mt7qxssulV20eht3O-Zi32m7aEexzr6U3zsX8p-31VkarwvPsiZFd0C-mcZF9_3Tx7fzz8ur6cn1-drVUlKO4JFIzgqmpJa0JENVwjGpalnUDhgLTpS65UaBLinFREoWgqSXbu-XjHiyy1wfdXeeCmDIIAjFKEOGcl4lYH4jGyRux83Yr_V_hpBX7Bec3QvpkudMCuEIlAygqXBGmGeN1OpijRjVQKCBJ6-N02lCnTFTKxstuJjrf6W0rNu63KAEqxKsk8G4S8O7XoEMUWxuU7jrZazfsfVOGgRf8ISghhFZJepG9-Q-9P4iJ2sh0V9sblyyqUVScEQYs2avGK67uodLX6K1V6d8yNq3PCt7PChIT9Z-4kUMIYv31y8PZ6x9z9u0R22rZxTa4bojW9WEOkgOovAvBa3P3HqgQY2vcpiHG1hBTa6SyV8dveVd02wvwDzXFBtM</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1874149995</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Effects of different medial arch support heights on rearfoot kinematics</title><source>Open Access: PubMed Central</source><source>ProQuest - Publicly Available Content Database</source><creator>Wahmkow, Gunnar ; Cassel, Michael ; Mayer, Frank ; Baur, Heiner</creator><contributor>Sakakibara, Manabu</contributor><creatorcontrib>Wahmkow, Gunnar ; Cassel, Michael ; Mayer, Frank ; Baur, Heiner ; Sakakibara, Manabu</creatorcontrib><description>Foot orthoses are usually assumed to be effective by optimizing mechanically dynamic rearfoot configuration. However, the effect from a foot orthosis on kinematics that has been demonstrated scientifically has only been marginal. The aim of this study was to examine the effect of different heights in medial arch-supported foot orthoses on rear foot motion during gait. Nineteen asymptomatic runners (36±11years, 180±5cm, 79±10kg; 41±22km/week) participated in the study. Trials were recorded at 3.1 mph (5 km/h) on a treadmill. Athletes walked barefoot and with 4 different not customized medial arch-supported foot orthoses of various arch heights (N:0 mm, M:30 mm, H:35 mm, E:40mm). Six infrared cameras and the `Oxford Foot Model´ were used to capture motion. The average stride in each condition was calculated from 50 gait cycles per condition. Eversion excursion and internal tibia rotation were analyzed. Descriptive statistics included calculating the mean ± SD and 95% CIs. Group differences by condition were analyzed by one factor (foot orthoses) repeated measures ANOVA (α = 0.05). Eversion excursion revealed the lowest values for N and highest for H (B:4.6°±2.2°; 95% CI [3.1;6.2]/N:4.0°±1.7°; [2.9;5.2]/M:5.2°±2.6°; [3.6;6.8]/H:6.2°±3.3°; [4.0;8.5]/E:5.1°±3.5°; [2.8;7.5]) (p&gt;0.05). Range of internal tibia rotation was lowest with orthosis H and highest with E (B:13.3°±3.2°; 95% CI [11.0;15.6]/N:14.5°±7.2°; [9.2;19.6]/M:13.8°±5.0°; [10.8;16.8]/H:12.3°±4.3°; [9.0;15.6]/E:14.9°±5.0°; [11.5;18.3]) (p&gt;0.05). Differences between conditions were small and the intrasubject variation high. Our results indicate that different arch support heights have no systematic effect on eversion excursion or the range of internal tibia rotation and therefore might not exert a crucial influence on rear foot alignment during gait.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0172334</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28257426</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Adult ; Analysis ; Arches ; Athletes ; Biology and Life Sciences ; Biomechanical Phenomena ; Cameras ; Computer and Information Sciences ; Exercise Test ; Feet ; Female ; Fitness equipment ; Foot Orthoses ; Gait ; Gait - physiology ; Gait disorders ; Humans ; Infrared cameras ; Injuries ; Kinematics ; Male ; Medicine ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; Orthopedic appliances ; Orthoses ; Pain ; Physical Sciences ; Running ; Running - physiology ; Sports medicine ; Studies ; Tibia ; Tibia - physiology ; Tinea Pedis ; Variance analysis ; Walking ; Weight-Bearing - physiology</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2017-03, Vol.12 (3), p.e0172334-e0172334</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2017 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2017 Wahmkow et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2017 Wahmkow et al 2017 Wahmkow et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c791t-4ae8427fba7b434cd921b755bd3f738e5e59fc3e5722054c13dba88257495e593</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c791t-4ae8427fba7b434cd921b755bd3f738e5e59fc3e5722054c13dba88257495e593</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/1874149995/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/1874149995?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,315,733,786,790,891,25783,27957,27958,37047,37048,44625,53827,53829,75483</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28257426$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Sakakibara, Manabu</contributor><creatorcontrib>Wahmkow, Gunnar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cassel, Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mayer, Frank</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Baur, Heiner</creatorcontrib><title>Effects of different medial arch support heights on rearfoot kinematics</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>Foot orthoses are usually assumed to be effective by optimizing mechanically dynamic rearfoot configuration. However, the effect from a foot orthosis on kinematics that has been demonstrated scientifically has only been marginal. The aim of this study was to examine the effect of different heights in medial arch-supported foot orthoses on rear foot motion during gait. Nineteen asymptomatic runners (36±11years, 180±5cm, 79±10kg; 41±22km/week) participated in the study. Trials were recorded at 3.1 mph (5 km/h) on a treadmill. Athletes walked barefoot and with 4 different not customized medial arch-supported foot orthoses of various arch heights (N:0 mm, M:30 mm, H:35 mm, E:40mm). Six infrared cameras and the `Oxford Foot Model´ were used to capture motion. The average stride in each condition was calculated from 50 gait cycles per condition. Eversion excursion and internal tibia rotation were analyzed. Descriptive statistics included calculating the mean ± SD and 95% CIs. Group differences by condition were analyzed by one factor (foot orthoses) repeated measures ANOVA (α = 0.05). Eversion excursion revealed the lowest values for N and highest for H (B:4.6°±2.2°; 95% CI [3.1;6.2]/N:4.0°±1.7°; [2.9;5.2]/M:5.2°±2.6°; [3.6;6.8]/H:6.2°±3.3°; [4.0;8.5]/E:5.1°±3.5°; [2.8;7.5]) (p&gt;0.05). Range of internal tibia rotation was lowest with orthosis H and highest with E (B:13.3°±3.2°; 95% CI [11.0;15.6]/N:14.5°±7.2°; [9.2;19.6]/M:13.8°±5.0°; [10.8;16.8]/H:12.3°±4.3°; [9.0;15.6]/E:14.9°±5.0°; [11.5;18.3]) (p&gt;0.05). Differences between conditions were small and the intrasubject variation high. Our results indicate that different arch support heights have no systematic effect on eversion excursion or the range of internal tibia rotation and therefore might not exert a crucial influence on rear foot alignment during gait.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Arches</subject><subject>Athletes</subject><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Biomechanical Phenomena</subject><subject>Cameras</subject><subject>Computer and Information Sciences</subject><subject>Exercise Test</subject><subject>Feet</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Fitness equipment</subject><subject>Foot Orthoses</subject><subject>Gait</subject><subject>Gait - physiology</subject><subject>Gait disorders</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Infrared cameras</subject><subject>Injuries</subject><subject>Kinematics</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine and Health Sciences</subject><subject>Orthopedic appliances</subject><subject>Orthoses</subject><subject>Pain</subject><subject>Physical Sciences</subject><subject>Running</subject><subject>Running - physiology</subject><subject>Sports medicine</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Tibia</subject><subject>Tibia - physiology</subject><subject>Tinea Pedis</subject><subject>Variance analysis</subject><subject>Walking</subject><subject>Weight-Bearing - physiology</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>PIMPY</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk1-L1DAUxYso7jr6DUQLgujDjE1u2iQvwrKs68DCgv9eQ5om06ydZkxS0W9vOtNdprIPSx8Skt89OTnpzbKXqFghoOjDjRt8L7vVzvV6VSCKAcij7BRxwMsKF_D4aH6SPQvhpihKYFX1NDvBDJeU4Oo0u7wwRqsYcmfyxqa5133Mt7qxssulV20eht3O-Zi32m7aEexzr6U3zsX8p-31VkarwvPsiZFd0C-mcZF9_3Tx7fzz8ur6cn1-drVUlKO4JFIzgqmpJa0JENVwjGpalnUDhgLTpS65UaBLinFREoWgqSXbu-XjHiyy1wfdXeeCmDIIAjFKEOGcl4lYH4jGyRux83Yr_V_hpBX7Bec3QvpkudMCuEIlAygqXBGmGeN1OpijRjVQKCBJ6-N02lCnTFTKxstuJjrf6W0rNu63KAEqxKsk8G4S8O7XoEMUWxuU7jrZazfsfVOGgRf8ISghhFZJepG9-Q-9P4iJ2sh0V9sblyyqUVScEQYs2avGK67uodLX6K1V6d8yNq3PCt7PChIT9Z-4kUMIYv31y8PZ6x9z9u0R22rZxTa4bojW9WEOkgOovAvBa3P3HqgQY2vcpiHG1hBTa6SyV8dveVd02wvwDzXFBtM</recordid><startdate>20170303</startdate><enddate>20170303</enddate><creator>Wahmkow, Gunnar</creator><creator>Cassel, Michael</creator><creator>Mayer, Frank</creator><creator>Baur, Heiner</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20170303</creationdate><title>Effects of different medial arch support heights on rearfoot kinematics</title><author>Wahmkow, Gunnar ; Cassel, Michael ; Mayer, Frank ; Baur, Heiner</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c791t-4ae8427fba7b434cd921b755bd3f738e5e59fc3e5722054c13dba88257495e593</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Arches</topic><topic>Athletes</topic><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Biomechanical Phenomena</topic><topic>Cameras</topic><topic>Computer and Information Sciences</topic><topic>Exercise Test</topic><topic>Feet</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Fitness equipment</topic><topic>Foot Orthoses</topic><topic>Gait</topic><topic>Gait - physiology</topic><topic>Gait disorders</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Infrared cameras</topic><topic>Injuries</topic><topic>Kinematics</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine and Health Sciences</topic><topic>Orthopedic appliances</topic><topic>Orthoses</topic><topic>Pain</topic><topic>Physical Sciences</topic><topic>Running</topic><topic>Running - physiology</topic><topic>Sports medicine</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Tibia</topic><topic>Tibia - physiology</topic><topic>Tinea Pedis</topic><topic>Variance analysis</topic><topic>Walking</topic><topic>Weight-Bearing - physiology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Wahmkow, Gunnar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cassel, Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mayer, Frank</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Baur, Heiner</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Database‎ (1962 - current)</collection><collection>ProQuest Agriculture &amp; Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Biological Sciences</collection><collection>Agriculture Science Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>PML(ProQuest Medical Library)</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest - Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Wahmkow, Gunnar</au><au>Cassel, Michael</au><au>Mayer, Frank</au><au>Baur, Heiner</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Effects of different medial arch support heights on rearfoot kinematics</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2017-03-03</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>12</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>e0172334</spage><epage>e0172334</epage><pages>e0172334-e0172334</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><notes>ObjectType-Article-1</notes><notes>SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1</notes><notes>ObjectType-Feature-2</notes><notes>content type line 23</notes><notes>Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.</notes><notes>Conceptualization: HB FM.Data curation: GW HB.Formal analysis: GW MC.Funding acquisition: HB FM.Investigation: HB MC GW.Methodology: HB MC GW.Project administration: HB FM.Resources: HB FM.Software: HB GW MC.Supervision: HB FM.Validation: HB.Visualization: GW MC HB.Writing – original draft: GW MC HB.Writing – review &amp; editing: GW MC HB FM.</notes><abstract>Foot orthoses are usually assumed to be effective by optimizing mechanically dynamic rearfoot configuration. However, the effect from a foot orthosis on kinematics that has been demonstrated scientifically has only been marginal. The aim of this study was to examine the effect of different heights in medial arch-supported foot orthoses on rear foot motion during gait. Nineteen asymptomatic runners (36±11years, 180±5cm, 79±10kg; 41±22km/week) participated in the study. Trials were recorded at 3.1 mph (5 km/h) on a treadmill. Athletes walked barefoot and with 4 different not customized medial arch-supported foot orthoses of various arch heights (N:0 mm, M:30 mm, H:35 mm, E:40mm). Six infrared cameras and the `Oxford Foot Model´ were used to capture motion. The average stride in each condition was calculated from 50 gait cycles per condition. Eversion excursion and internal tibia rotation were analyzed. Descriptive statistics included calculating the mean ± SD and 95% CIs. Group differences by condition were analyzed by one factor (foot orthoses) repeated measures ANOVA (α = 0.05). Eversion excursion revealed the lowest values for N and highest for H (B:4.6°±2.2°; 95% CI [3.1;6.2]/N:4.0°±1.7°; [2.9;5.2]/M:5.2°±2.6°; [3.6;6.8]/H:6.2°±3.3°; [4.0;8.5]/E:5.1°±3.5°; [2.8;7.5]) (p&gt;0.05). Range of internal tibia rotation was lowest with orthosis H and highest with E (B:13.3°±3.2°; 95% CI [11.0;15.6]/N:14.5°±7.2°; [9.2;19.6]/M:13.8°±5.0°; [10.8;16.8]/H:12.3°±4.3°; [9.0;15.6]/E:14.9°±5.0°; [11.5;18.3]) (p&gt;0.05). Differences between conditions were small and the intrasubject variation high. Our results indicate that different arch support heights have no systematic effect on eversion excursion or the range of internal tibia rotation and therefore might not exert a crucial influence on rear foot alignment during gait.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>28257426</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0172334</doi><tpages>e0172334</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1932-6203
ispartof PloS one, 2017-03, Vol.12 (3), p.e0172334-e0172334
issn 1932-6203
1932-6203
language eng
recordid cdi_plos_journals_1874149995
source Open Access: PubMed Central; ProQuest - Publicly Available Content Database
subjects Adult
Analysis
Arches
Athletes
Biology and Life Sciences
Biomechanical Phenomena
Cameras
Computer and Information Sciences
Exercise Test
Feet
Female
Fitness equipment
Foot Orthoses
Gait
Gait - physiology
Gait disorders
Humans
Infrared cameras
Injuries
Kinematics
Male
Medicine
Medicine and Health Sciences
Orthopedic appliances
Orthoses
Pain
Physical Sciences
Running
Running - physiology
Sports medicine
Studies
Tibia
Tibia - physiology
Tinea Pedis
Variance analysis
Walking
Weight-Bearing - physiology
title Effects of different medial arch support heights on rearfoot kinematics
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-09-23T05%3A27%3A21IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Effects%20of%20different%20medial%20arch%20support%20heights%20on%20rearfoot%20kinematics&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Wahmkow,%20Gunnar&rft.date=2017-03-03&rft.volume=12&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=e0172334&rft.epage=e0172334&rft.pages=e0172334-e0172334&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0172334&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA483896364%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c791t-4ae8427fba7b434cd921b755bd3f738e5e59fc3e5722054c13dba88257495e593%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1874149995&rft_id=info:pmid/28257426&rft_galeid=A483896364&rfr_iscdi=true