Segmental foot and ankle kinematic differences between rectus, planus, and cavus foot types.

The presence of multiple foot types has been used to explain the variability of foot structure observed among healthy adults. These foot types were determined by specific static morphologic features and included rectus (well aligned hindfoot/forefoot), planus (low arched), and cavus (high arched) foot types. Unique biomechanical characteristics of these foot types have been identified but reported differences in segmental foot kinematics among them has been inconsistent due to differences in neutral referencing and evaluation of only select discrete variables. This study used the radiographically-indexed Milwaukee Foot Model to evaluate differences in segmental foot kinematics among healthy adults with rectus, planus, and cavus feet based on the true bony alignment between segments. Based on the definitions of the individual foot types and due to conflicting results in previous literature, the primary study outcome was peak coronal hindfoot position during stance phase. Additionally, locally weighted regression smoothing with alpha-adjusted serial t-test analysis (LAAST) was used to compare these foot types across the entire gait cycle. Average peak hindfoot inversion was -1.6° ± 5.1°, 6.7° ± 3.5°, and 13.6° ± 4.6°, for the Planus, Rectus, and Cavus Groups, respectively. There were significant differences among all comparisons. Differences were observed between the Rectus and Planus Groups and Cavus and Planus Groups throughout the gait cycle. Additionally, the Planus Group had a premature peak velocity toward coronal varus and early transition toward valgus, likely due to a deficient windlass mechanism. This assessment of kinematic data across the gait cycle can help understand differences in dynamic foot function among foot types.

[1]  M. Sangeux,et al.  A simple method to choose the most representative stride and detect outliers. , 2015, Gait & posture.

[2]  R. Donatelli,et al.  Abnormal biomechanics of the foot and ankle. , 1987, The Journal of orthopaedic and sports physical therapy.

[3]  C. Brockett,et al.  Biomechanics of the ankle , 2016, Orthopaedics and trauma.

[4]  T G McPoil,et al.  Evaluation and management of foot and ankle disorders: present problems and future directions. , 1995, The Journal of orthopaedic and sports physical therapy.

[5]  K. Nicholson,et al.  Comparison of three-dimensional multi-segmental foot models used in clinical gait laboratories. , 2018, Gait & posture.

[6]  Peter A. Smith,et al.  Segmental kinematic analysis of planovalgus feet during walking in children with cerebral palsy. , 2017, Gait & posture.

[7]  Clare E. Milner,et al.  Frontal plane multi-segment foot kinematics in high- and low-arched females during dynamic loading tasks. , 2011, Human movement science.

[8]  Gerald F. Harris,et al.  A Model for the Evaluation of Lower Extremity Kinematics with Integrated Multisegmental Foot Motion , 2011 .

[9]  Jonathan C. Levy,et al.  Incidence of Foot and Ankle Injuries in West Point Cadets with Pes Planus Compared to the General Cadet Population , 2006, Foot & ankle international.

[10]  William R. Ledoux,et al.  Biomechanical Differences Among Pes Cavus, Neutrally Aligned, and Pes Planus Feet in Subjects with Diabetes , 2003, Foot & ankle international.

[11]  Maria R. Pasquale,et al.  Concurrent validity of an automated algorithm for computing the center of pressure excursion index (CPEI). , 2018, Gait & posture.

[12]  M. L. Root,et al.  Normal and abnormal function of the foot , 1977 .

[13]  K. Kaufman,et al.  The Effect of Foot Structure and Range of Motion on Musculoskeletal Overuse Injuries , 1999, The American journal of sports medicine.

[14]  K. Erol,et al.  An Important Cause of Pes Planus: The Posterior Tibial Tendon Dysfunction , 2015, Clinics and practice.

[15]  Hylton B. Menz,et al.  Clinical hindfoot measurement: a critical review of the literature , 1995 .

[16]  G F Harris,et al.  A system for the analysis of foot and ankle kinematics during gait. , 1996, IEEE transactions on rehabilitation engineering : a publication of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[17]  R. Marks,et al.  Validation of a multisegment foot and ankle kinematic model for pediatric gait , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[18]  Alberto Leardini,et al.  Kinematic Foot Models for Instrumented Gait Analysis , 2016 .

[19]  S. Backus,et al.  Foot Type Biomechanics Part 2: are structure and anthropometrics related to function? , 2013, Gait & posture.

[20]  Kai-Nan An,et al.  Effects of plantar fascia stiffness on the biomechanical responses of the ankle-foot complex. , 2004, Clinical biomechanics.

[21]  William R Ledoux,et al.  The distributed plantar vertical force of neutrally aligned and pes planus feet. , 2002, Gait & posture.

[22]  H. Sugathan,et al.  A modified Jones procedure for managing clawing of lesser toes in pes cavus: long-term follow-up in 8 patients. , 2009, The Journal of foot and ankle surgery : official publication of the American College of Foot and Ankle Surgeons.

[23]  Todd C Pataky,et al.  Generalized n-dimensional biomechanical field analysis using statistical parametric mapping. , 2010, Journal of biomechanics.

[24]  A. Zavatsky,et al.  Comparison of the hindfoot axes of a multi-segment foot model to the underlying bony anatomy. , 2019, Journal of biomechanics.

[25]  Jonathan T Deland,et al.  Foot type biomechanics part 1: structure and function of the asymptomatic foot. , 2013, Gait & posture.

[26]  J. Houck,et al.  Subtalar neutral position as an offset for a kinematic model of the foot during walking. , 2008, Gait & Posture.

[27]  J. Davids,et al.  Quantitative Segmental Analysis of Weight-Bearing Radiographs of the Foot and Ankle for Children: Normal Alignment , 2005, Journal of pediatric orthopedics.

[28]  C. Kowalski,et al.  [The normal and pathological foot. Concepts of anatomy, physiology and pathology of foot deformities]. , 1970, Acta orthopaedica Belgica.

[29]  D B Clement,et al.  Stress fractures in athletes , 1987, The American journal of sports medicine.

[30]  Chris Bishop,et al.  Recommendations for the reporting of foot and ankle models. , 2012, Journal of biomechanics.

[31]  Jack Crosbie,et al.  The effect of pes cavus on foot pain and plantar pressure. , 2005, Clinical biomechanics.

[32]  Taly Gilat Schmidt,et al.  Biplane fluoroscopy for hindfoot motion analysis during gait: A model-based evaluation. , 2017, Medical engineering & physics.

[33]  Hicks Jh The mechanics of the foot: II. The plantar aponeurosis and the arch , 1954 .

[34]  H. Menz,et al.  A comparison of foot kinematics in people with normal- and flat-arched feet using the Oxford Foot Model. , 2010, Gait & posture.

[35]  Hylton B Menz,et al.  Foot posture is associated with kinematics of the foot during gait: A comparison of normal, planus and cavus feet. , 2015, Gait & posture.