Important Historical Biomechanics Papers

Wright & Rennels-Classic Paper: A Study of the Elastic Properties of Plantar Fascia

As I mentioned in another posting earlier, I worked briefly with a Foot Orthopedist in Sacramento, Gib Wright, MD, during my first year of practice. Dr. Wright was the primary author of two very important studies during his Orthopedic Residency from a half century ago. I was very pleased, one day in 1985, when he handed me the original Technical Memorandums from the University of California Biomechanics Laboratory where these papers were first published.

I have scanned this difficult-to-find Technical Memorandum from the UCBL which details the classic and one-of-a-kind study on the elastic properties of the plantar fascia from 50 years ago by Wrigth and Rennels. In addition, their subsequent paper published in JBJS is also attached.

Happy reading.

 

Elftman-Classic Paper: The Transverse Tarsal Joint and Its Control

One of the classic papers on the midtarsal joint was written by Herbert Elftman in 1960 (Elftman H: The transverse tarsal joint and its control. Clin. Orthop., 16:41-44, 1960). Elftman described how both the talo-navicular and calcaneo-cuboid joints had two separate "axes" and described how a "parallel axis" arrangement of the two joints somehow created more motion of the midtarsal joint when the foot was pronated. Unfortunately, this innaccurate biomechanical notion of Elftman that his imaginary "axes" of the midtarsal joint somehow "control" the motion of the midtarsal joint are still being taught in podiatric medical institutions to this day.

Please read this paper closely and I challenge anyone to tell me how many feet Elftman analyzed and how he actually determined these "axes" of the talo-navicular and calcaneo-cuboid joints? By "the eye of the connoiseur"? What is the definition of a joint axis?

 

Re: Wright & Rennels-Classic Paper: A Study of the Elastic Properties of Plantar Fascia

It really is wonderful you're finding the time to share all these seminal works with the pod arena community. Many many thanks, Tom

 

Ewen Jack-Classic Paper: Navicul-Cuneiform Fusion in the Treatment of Flat Foot (Jack's Test)

Many of you may be interested to know where the clinical test came from that is used to determine whether medial arch raising and subtalar joint supination occurs with hallux dorsiflexion. In 1951, Ewen A. Jack,O.B.E., Ch.M., F.R.C.S.Ed., of the Department of Orthopedic Surgery at the University of Edinburgh described this test which is now known as Jack's Test. Jack died in the same year that his paper was published.

Hope you enjoy his paper.

Jack EA: Naviculo-cuneiform fusion in the treatment of flat foot. JBJS, 35B:75-82, 1953.

 

Merton Root-Classic Paper: A Discussion of Biomechanical Consderations for Treatment of the Infant Foot

While combing through my stacks of papers, I found another of Dr. Mert Root's nearly unknown papers (Root ML. A discussion of biomechanical considerations for treatment of the infant foot. Arch Podiatr Med Foot Surg, 1:41-46, 1973).

Would be interested if others consider this 38 year old paper by one of the fathers of podiatric biomechanics to still be current.

 

John Manter: Classic Articles on Foot Biomechanics

Sixty years ago, John Manter was one of the first researchers to ever quantify the axis of motion of the subtalar joint and attempt to describe the axes of the midtarsal joint. His paper on this subject is a must-read for any student of foot biomechanics (Manter JT: Movements of the subtalar and transverse tarsal joints. Anat Rec, 80:397-410, 1941).

Five years later, Manter also published a little-known paper where he attempted to measure the compression forces in the joints of the foot during weightbearing loading forces using a novel but crude "ball and lead plate indentation" method (Manter JT: Distribution of compression forces in the joints of the human foot. Anat Rec, 96:313-321, 1946). No one else in his era ever did such an experiment, trying to determine the loading forces present within the joints of the foot during simulated weightbearing.

Considering the technology available to him at the time, John Manter has to be considered one of the leading foot biomechanics researchers of the early 20th century.

Happy reading.

 

Richard Schuster: Best Early Article on the History of Podiatric Biomechanics

Richard Schuster, DPM, was the son of a German born brace-maker, Otto Schuster, who made Whitman braces for Royal Whitman in New York. Richard Schuster taught biomechanics on the east coast of the US for many years and wrote the best early article on the history of orthopedics and biomechanics in podiatry which I first read in 1988. This article greatly influenced my appreciation of the long road that podiatry has come along during our development and is a must-read for any student of foot biomechanics (Schuster RO: A history of orthopedics in podiatry. JAPA, 64(5):332-345, 1974).

Happy reading.

 

Classic Early Glass Walkway Study from UC Biomechanics Laboratory

One of the benefits of being a CCPM student was that I had access to all the articles in the library. I spent countless hours trying to find any information I could during my 5 years at CCPM by copying articles on foot and lower extremity biomechanics. Here is a section of a book from the UC Biomechanics Lab from 1952 which shows the early prosthetics research that was going on during that era in the San Francisco Bay Area to try and design better lower limb prosthetics for the injured soldiers of the post World War II era (Ryker NJ: Glass walkway studies of normal subjects during normal level walking. University of California Berkeley Prosthetic Devices Research Project, Institute of Engineering Research, University of California, 1952)

 

I hope I got them all.
I asked Kevin and we thought it was a good idea to put all the Classic Historical Biomechanics Papers in 1 thread and I have made the Thread Sticky so it ill not be lost.

It maybe a little messy with discussions from various thread, but these add to the - were we have come from and how we have evolved re biomechancial thinking so have moved everything.

Have a nice weekend

 

The Papers of J. Robert Close: Very Impressive Stuff!

Here are a number of papers from J. Robert Close, who was an orthopedic surgeon working closely with Verne Inman and coworkers at the UC Biomechanics Lab in Berkeley in the 1950s and 1960s during the era when this center was doing much of the world's best research on foot and lower extremity biomechanics. Especially take note of the technical report from the UC Biomechanics Lab by Close and Inman...this one is extremely difficult to come by. This paper by Close and Inman is probably the first published bone-pin pedal gait biomechanics study ever done that measured talo-calcaneal motion.

Close JR, Inman VT: The action of the subtalar joint. Institute of Engineering Research, University of California, Berkeley, Series II, Issue 24, May 1953.

Close JR: Some applications of the functional anatomy of the ankle joint. JBJS, 38A:761-781, 1956.

Close JR, Todd FN: The phasic activity of the muscles of the lower extremity and the effect of tendon transfer. JBJS, 41A:189-235, 1959.

Close JR, Nickel ED, Todd FN: Motor-unit action-potential counts their significance in isometric and isotonic contractions. JBJS, 42A:1207-1222, 1960.

Close JR, Inman VT, Poor PM, Todd FN: The function of the subtalar joint. Clinical Orthopedics, 50:159-179, 1967.

 

Lovett and Cotton: Early Papers on Subtalar Joint Biomechanics

Here are two papers from Lovett and Cotton, one from the 1898 edition of the Boston Medical and Surgical Journal (Lovett RW, Cotton FJ:: Some practical points in the anatomy of the foot. Boston Med Surg J, 139: 101-107, 1898) and another one that is nearly identical from 1898 from JBJS. (Lovett RW, Cotton FJ: Some practical points in the anatomy of the foot. JBJS, s1-11:298-315, 1898).

Please take note how Lovett and Cotton, over 110 years ago, describe how the "unhealthy foot" does not have a "reserve of pronation". A foot with no "reserve of pronation" means that the subtalar joint is maximally pronated.

Our previous research on the response of maximally pronated and non-maximally pronated feet to varus-wedged orthoses seems to also suggest that these feet behave differently to these wedges, or, in other words, maximally pronated feet have more "subtalar joint supination stiffness" than do non-maximally pronated feet (Pascual Huerta J, Ropa Moreno JM, Kirby KA: Static response of maximally pronated and nonmaximally pronated feet to frontal plane wedging of foot orthoses. JAPMA, 99:13-19, 2009).

 

Re: Classic Bojsen-Moller: High Gear and Low Gear at Push Off

Hi Kevin

First of all, thank you so much for driving this thread. It is really fascinating, I only wish I had enough time to spend more time reading it! I'm not sure where you get your time from, do you sleep?

In regard to the Bojsen-Moller papers. There is some good papers recently published by Neil Cronin, showing that the tendon does elongate ( short term increase in tendon tissue compliance) during prolonged walking and that these changes are offset by changes in muscle fascicle length. As predicted in the model by Bojsen-Moller. Got to love it when a model works out.....

Here are the papers for anyone who may want to go into some more depth.

View attachment The Journal of Physiology 2009 Cronin.pdf

View attachment J Neurophysiol-2011-Cronin-548-53.pdf

Cheers:drinks

 

Re: Classic Bojsen-Moller: High Gear and Low Gear at Push Off

Luke:

Thanks for the kind comments. With your recent publications, who knows, maybe in another 40 years we will have a thread titled "Classic Luke Kelly Papers"?:drinks

 

Kevin has uploaded so many fantastic papers recently that I had to download/compare/reorganize the two hard drives I keep these works on. Quite a task! Finding the time to read them all could take months. I just went and nabbed a grande coffee and now back to it.

Thank you for all that you do Dr. Kirby, you mentor us all :santa2:

 

P.S. I need to add that many others have provided us all with some very important studies not to mention their posting contributions. Deeply grateful to have a place like PA to go to and continue to learn.

 

John Weed's Biomechanics III Syllabus on Foot Orthosis Therapy

Here is one of the most important documents that I have now scanned for this collection of historical resources for the student of foot and lower extremity biomechanics. Attached below (in two parts) is the syllabus that Dr. John Weed wrote and used for his class, Biomechanics III, at the California College of Podiatric Medicine in San Francisco in approximately 1982.

Within the pages of this historical resource is the information we were taught as 2nd, 3rd and 4th year podiatry students at CCPM as to how we should prescribe foot orthoses for a variety of pathologies. In addition, other valuable pearls such as conservative and surgical treatment of many pathologies and radiological evaluation of feet are included.

You will see, with reading of this previously unpublished document, that even though we have come a long way in our knowledge from nearly 30 years ago, Dr. Weed taught a great deal of very useful and interesting information for the podiatry students of CCPM.

I am very grateful for the excellent education he gave me and my fellow podiatry students. Thanks, John.:drinks

 

John Weed's Biomechanics II Syllabus

Here is John Weed's CCPM Biomechanics II syllabus, previously unpublished, and now broken up into two parts so everyone can download it from Podiatry Arena. This course was taught to the second year podiatry students at CCPM and described Root and Weed's concepts of rearfoot and forefoot deformities, "compensations" for these deformities during gait along with other basic biomechanics concepts.

 

Dudley J. Morton: King of Foot Biomechanics in the Early 20th Century

Dudley Joy Morton was one of the most impressive early authors on foot structure and foot biomechanics in the early 20th century. He was a medical doctor, anatomist and anthropologist and his works greatly influenced podiatrists of the 1930s to 1950s (Lee WE: Merton L. Root: An appreciation. The Podiatric Biomechanics Group Focus. 2(2): 32-68, 2003).

Here are a number of his papers that show the devotion this amazing man had to studying and writing about the structure and function of the foot.

 

More Dudley J. Morton Papers

Here are a few more papers from Dudley Morton including one of his most famous papers on first metatarsal segment hypermobility.

Happy reading!:drinks

 

Royal Whitman-Classic Papers on Foot Biomechanics

Royal Whitman (1857-1946) was a 1882 Harvard Medical School graduate and New York City orthopedic surgeon that had special interest in foot function. He wrote numerous textbooks on orthopedic surgery and taught orthopedics for 40 years. He developed one of the earliest foot braces and was a champion within the medical profession for treating people with foot pathologies which many of his medical colleagues ignored.

 

More Important Papers from the UC Biomechanics Lab Era

The University of California Biomechanics Lab in Berkeley was the hub for post World War II research on foot and lower extremity biomechanics in the 1950s and 1960s. Many papers originating from this center subsequently influenced Dr. Mert Root and his colleagues from the California College of Podiatric Medicine (across the San Francisco Bay in San Francisco) to work toward advancing the science of podiatric biomechanics. Here are some classic papers on foot and lower extremity biomechanics from Verne Inman, MD,PhD, and his colleagues from the UC Biomechanics Lab that are must-reads for the student of foot and lower extremity biomechanics.

 

In our publication of 1996 (Kidd et al - Journal of Human Evolution), with regard to the Olduvai Hominid 8 fossil assemblage from East Africa, we hypothesised that this could be the "Hypothetical prehuman foot" as predicted by Morton in his works. We looked at the talus, navicular, cuboid and the calcaneal fragment - not the medial cuneiform. Later, we studied "Little Foot", StW573 from Sterkfontein in South Africa (Kidd & Oxnard, 2004, Journal of Human Comparative Biology; in this study we look at its cuneiform AND go back to OH8 and its cuneiform. It became evident that neither had a divergent first ray and thus the anterior portion of Morton's hypothetical became debunked (in as far as the paucity of the fossil record allows).
Last year we studied the first complete calcaneus (Australopithecus sediba), published in Science last October (Zipfel et al, 2010) - this has a very gracile heel, and thus the posterior portion of Morton's hypothetical went out on the window. (again, in so much as the tiny fossil record allows). Thus is th a nature of science - we are only right until demonstrated to be wrong - and if one is one, for goodness sake be the first to say so! Rob P.S: There are lessons here for Podiatric biomechanics.............................

 

OK Bob, you got me interested. When you are talking about fossil specimens, the sample size you are talking about for any period in history is what? One? Forgive me, but if as a scientist I tried to make extrapolations to the general population based on observations from one modern individual in isolation my peers might protest somewhat. Can you just remind us as to why we should take observations on singular fossil specimens seriously, one more time? What are, in your mind, the lessons for modern biomechanics that we can learn from samples of one? Moreover, we have here a contradiction, you yourself have been a critic of Root's approach to predicting function via structure. How can we possibly predict biomechanical function from isolated fossil specimens? Just some academic questions Bob, nothing personal.

 

Rob:

And what lessons are those? That we should never make guesses about the structure and function of a whole era of individuals by looking at only one of two skeletal remains out of the hundreds of thousands that existed at the time? Oh....I forgot...... anthropologists, archaeologists and paleontologists never disagree with each other, never take guesses based on very limited data to support their guesses and are never wrong in their guesses.

Good joke, Rob.

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/archive/display/category/paleontology

 

They make informed judgements all the time - I would not use the word guess - that has no role in science. The key issue is that yes - they are informed judgements - and based upon a tiny sample size - it is all there is. That is why it is so important to constantly revisit in light of new information. That was the point I was making - and that is the lesson I was referring to with regard to podiatric biomechanics.

There are huge assumption made upon structure, based upon the fossil record - but there is nothing else. Does that mean one should say nothing? Or does it mean one should say what one can, and be ready to change that in light of future research and finds? I think the latter - which is why I took pains to point out that first we had supported, and then later refuted, the prehuman foot (at least the divergant first ray part of it), in light of new work.

As a matter of interest, the concept of a hind foot being "human-like" while the forefoot is ape-like (ie divergent first ray), flies in the face of all available fossil evidence. And, while way outside what I know about, I understand this is supported by evidence from the appropriate genetics - HOX genes.

 

Rob:

So how then is podiatric biomechanics any different from any other medical specialty? Are you saying that those of us who lecture and teach podiatric biomechanics don't "constantly revisit in light of new information"? Are you referring to someone in specific or to everyone who lectures and teaches podiatric biomechanics?

I don't understand the point you were trying to make.

 

I was not making any point at all - simply a bit of history of the end result of a small part of Morton's tremenedous work. In the original posting you will note my words: "(in as far as the paucity of the fossil record allows)" - and further on a . similar phrase. I was making clear the assumptions that are based upon a tiny sample size. My cast away remark with regard to podiatric biomechanics was not personal - none of my comments ever are (though you would have to read carefully to understand that). It was simply a little dig at supporting the unsupportable, in light of new information - while this may the case in other disciplines or not, I do not know. It has in the past however, been huge in podiatric biomechanics. A fine example is found in forfoot varus. There is a famous text - NOT Root vol 2 - that quotes the etiology of this condition to be due to the failaure of the head of the talus to undergo its normal valgus torsion; this is a long time after many papers, including in JAPMA, have noted a zero relationship between talar head torsion and forefoot-hindfoot relationship. Thus, current research was ignored. This is but one example. Just a little dig.

 

Rob:

I know exactly what you are talking about. In 1990 I wrote a series of three Precision Intricast Newsletters titled "Inaccuracies in Podiatric Biomechanics Dogma" that was later to be published in my first book (Kirby KA: Foot and Lower Extremity Biomechanics: A Ten Year Collection of Precision Intricast Newsletters. Precision Intricast, Inc., Payson, Arizona, 1997).

In these three newsletters I detail the nine "inaccuracies" I was taught regarding "subtalar joint neutral biomechanics" by the Biomechanics Faculty at CCPM that were accepted as "fact" by most podiatrists of the time. I felt these nine "inaccuracies" were unsupportable using the logical application of mechanics to the foot and lower extremity.

Podiatry is no different than other medical specialties in this regard. Changing paradigms within any medical specialty takes many years to accomplish, with many believers/adherents of the older paradigm simply ignoring inconvenient facts to support their old view of reality.

It is my hope that, by presenting these earliest papers on foot and lower extremity biomechanics within this thread, that those who have not read these papers before will be able to better appeciate how far podiatry has come in the decades since these papers were first published.:drinks

 

More Papers from UC Biomechanics Lab

Here are the last few papers I could find from the UC Biomechanics Lab from Verne Inman and coworkers.

Hope you all enjoy them.

Inman VT: UC-BL dual axis ankle-control system and UC-BL shoe insert. Bull Pros Research, 10:130-145.

Isman RE, Inman VT: Anthropometric studies of the human foot and ankle. Bull Pros Research, 10:97-129, 1969.

Isman RE, Inman VT: Anthropometric Studies of the Human Foot and Ankle. Biomechanics Laboratory, University of California, Technical Report 58, San Francisco, May 1968.

 

Many thanks for sharing all these papers some great stuff.

Just out of interest while on the subject of historical papers I thought I'd share this link I found on the BBC about Newton's work being made public over the next few months by Cambridge Ubiversity.

I haven't had eyes-on them myself yet but I'll be keen to see his opinion on barefoot running.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-16141723

 

I highly recommend this biography of Sir Isaac Newton for your Christmas Wish List. I have listened to it three times over the past five years on audiobook. Even though Newton was rather odd in many ways, he was exceedingly brilliant and every time I listen again to his life's story I am inspired by his genius.

 

While perhaps not Historical in the terms of years more Vintage , but full text copies are not available from the journal they were printed in.


It seems my computer has lost one of the papers which is weird , Hopefully the author could post up a PDF.

Rotational equilibrium across the subtalar joint axis - KA Kirby 1989

 

maybe not important important but interesting and old

ON THE CAUSE AND MECHANICAL TREATMENT OF SUBLUXATION OF THE SEMILUNAR CARTILAGES OF THE KNEE-JOINT.'

BY NEWTON M. SHAFFER, M.D.,

 

This is an interesting article by G.K. Rose from 1958. Within it he talks about medially deviated subtalar joint axis and the importance of wedging position (you'll like this Kevin). He also describes something very similar to MASS casting technique.

http://web.jbjs.org.uk/content/40-B/4/674.full.pdf

 

I remember first glancing at this paper sometime in about 1990-1991 when I was doing the literature review for the chapter I wrote for DeValentine's book since I have it somewhere deep within my files of papers. Don't know why I didn't reference it within the chapter other than I suppose that I wasn't that impressed with his explanation....who knows....that was 22 years ago. Looking at it again, I probably should have paid closer attention to it. Thanks for the clean copy!