Effect of shoe insert construction on foot and leg movement.

PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to quantify changes in foot eversion and tibial rotation during running resulting from systematic changes of material composition of five shoe inserts of the same shape. METHODS Tests were performed with 12 subjects. The inserts had a bilayer design using two different materials at the top and bottom of the insert. The functional kinematic variables examined in this study were the foot-leg in-eversion angle, beta, and the leg-foot tibial rotation, rho. Additionally, the subject characteristics of arch height, relative arch deformation, and active range of motion were quantified. The statistical analysis used was a two way repeated measures MANOVA (within trials and inserts). RESULTS The average group changes resulting from the studied inserts in total shoe eversion, total foot eversion, and total internal tibial rotation were typically smaller than 1 degree when compared with the no-insert condition and were statistically not significant. The measured ranges of total foot eversion for all subjects were smallest for the softest and about twice as large for the hardest insert construction. Thus, the soft insert construction was more restrictive, forcing all feet into a similar movement pattern, whereas the harder combinations allowed for more individual variation of foot and leg movement and did not force the foot into a preset movement pattern. The individual results showed substantial differences between subjects and a trend: Subjects who generally showed a reduction of tibial rotation with all tested inserts typically had a flexible foot. However, subjects who generally showed an increase of tibial rotation typically had a stiff foot. CONCLUSIONS The results of this study suggest that subject specific factors such as static, dynamic, and neuro-physiological characteristics of foot and leg are important to match specific feet and shoe inserts optimally.

[1]  G K Cole,et al.  Application of the joint coordinate system to three-dimensional joint attitude and movement representation: a standardization proposal. , 1993, Journal of biomechanical engineering.

[2]  D Brunt,et al.  The effect of foot orthotics and gait velocity on lower limb kinematics and temporal events of stance. , 1993, The Journal of orthopaedic and sports physical therapy.

[3]  M R Pierrynowski,et al.  The effect of soft foot orthotics on three-dimensional lower-limb kinematics during walking and running. , 1994, Physical therapy.

[4]  S. James,et al.  Injuries to runners , 1974, The American journal of sports medicine.

[5]  J. Taunton,et al.  The Role of Biomechanics in the Epidemiology of Injuries , 1988, Sports medicine.

[6]  R. Donatelli,et al.  Effects of three different posting methods on controlling abnormal subtalar pronation. , 1994, Physical therapy.

[7]  B T Bates,et al.  Foot orthotic devices to modify selected aspects of lower extremity mechanics , 1979, The American journal of sports medicine.

[8]  R. Donatelli,et al.  Biomechanical foot orthotics: a retrospective study. , 1988, The Journal of orthopaedic and sports physical therapy.

[9]  C. Saltzman,et al.  The effect of foot orthotics on three-dimensional kinematics of the leg and rearfoot during running. , 1995, The Journal of orthopaedic and sports physical therapy.

[10]  Jack R. Engsberg,et al.  A method to determine the range of motion of the ankle joint complex, in vivo , 1993 .

[11]  D L Kelley,et al.  Position and Movement Changes of the Foot with Orthotic Intervention during the Loading Response of Gait. , 1990, The Journal of orthopaedic and sports physical therapy.

[12]  E S Grood,et al.  A joint coordinate system for the clinical description of three-dimensional motions: application to the knee. , 1983, Journal of biomechanical engineering.

[13]  R. E. Klingman,et al.  The effect of subtalar joint posting on patellar glide position in subjects with excessive rearfoot pronation. , 1997, The Journal of orthopaedic and sports physical therapy.

[14]  B. Nigg,et al.  Effects of arch height of the foot on angular motion of the lower extremities in running. , 1993, Journal of biomechanics.

[15]  C. Reinschmidt,et al.  The movement of the heel within a running shoe. , 1992, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[16]  M. Cornwall,et al.  Rigid versus soft foot orthoses. A single subject design. , 1991, Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association.

[17]  S. Subotnick The Biomechanics of Running Implications for the Prevention of Foot Injuries , 1985, Sports medicine.

[18]  M. L. Gross,et al.  Effectiveness of orthotic shoe inserts in the long-distance runner , 1991, The American journal of sports medicine.

[19]  B. Nigg,et al.  Effect of viscoelastic shoe insoles on vertical impact forces in heel-toe running , 1988, The American journal of sports medicine.

[20]  D H Perrin,et al.  Effect of orthotics on postural sway following inversion ankle sprain. , 1996, The Journal of orthopaedic and sports physical therapy.