Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums

You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members, upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, access other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisements in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!

  1. Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
Dismiss Notice
Have you liked us on Facebook to get our updates? Please do. Click here for our Facebook page.
Dismiss Notice
Do you get the weekly newsletter that Podiatry Arena sends out to update everybody? If not, click here to organise this.

Lateral STJ axis feet that look as though they are pronating

Discussion in 'Biomechanics, Sports and Foot orthoses' started by bigtoe, Mar 4, 2010.

  1. Griff

    Griff Moderator

    Dave

    I think this may be the paper Andrea is referring to

    Ian
     

    Attached Files:

  2. Prediction: bone pin study soon that shows no significant difference in kinematics with and without orthoses. I have no inside info, I'm just guessing.
     
  3. Andrea Castello

    Andrea Castello Active Member

    Hi Dave.

    In isolation you would expect the rearfoot to supinate, however what about shifts in the lower back, pelvis and hip moving the CoF more medially again? Wouldn't this have the effect of reducing or cancelling out the supination moment?

    Also what about the ability for the Talo-Navicular in particular to account for that supination moment through increased mobility (over the STJ)?

    Again I'm only thinking out loud here and am asking these questions in the interest of challenging my knowledge and beliefs.

    Simon...I think you may well be right...

    Regards
    A
     
  4. Atlas

    Atlas Well-Known Member

    As you have shown, you don't have to be a biomech expert to come up with gold.


    1. You have better eyes than me.
    2. No
    3. Great point. Forefoot pain is out there in bucket loads. But do we hang on to some myth that "its all in the rearfoot"? Despite the forefoot pain being the main complaint, there are many devices out there that end proximal to the met-heads that have no features at all in the distal section. No domes, no padding, no forefoot wedging; nil.


    Its has been all about introducing physiological forces at the STJ that dominates a guestimate of 95% of our thinking/discussion. But forefoot pathologies/complaints are surely much much greater than 5%!!!
    We carry on as if the heel never lifts in stance IMO, because at FF load, the influence (at the forefoot) of the rear section of an orthotic surely diminishes. At this stage, we have body weight going through the forefoot, and I assume then through the TN, TC and up the leg.

    How are we changing the forces through the forefoot at FF load, if the plain shell device ends proximal to the met heads? Surely to change forefoot pathology, the device must have an effect at the distal half of the shell and beyond.



    Ron Bateman
    Physiotherapist (Masters) & Podiatrist
     
  5. David Smith

    David Smith Well-Known Member

    Just downloaded that again Ian thanks just by chance I came across this and might be useful for current case study.
     
Loading...

Share This Page