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. Everything that you are ever going to want to know about running shoes: Running Shoes Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Have you considered the Critical Thinking and Skeptical Boot Camp, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. 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.


Discussion in 'Biomechanics, Sports and Foot orthoses' started by Phil Wells, Sep 20, 2010.

  1. Phil Wells

    Phil Wells Active Member

    Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.
    Dear all

    For those of you who didn't see Bruce's posts from the I-Fab conference below

    Bone pin live model study in Sweden again.
    Makes Bruce wonder if the willingness of Swedes to have pins drilled into their feet and legs gives a reason for why Tiger Woods wife stuck(pun intended) with him for so long. ;-)
    Seriously, the study showed an increase in ankle joint ROM vs STJ ROM in anti-pronation devices
    Also shows an increase in ROM of STJ vs AJ ROM with laterally posted devices.
    Opposite RF and AJ effects with different devices but similar midfoot respons between the devices.
    Very well done to the "sticker of Salford" Chris Nester!

    I am working my way through this one but would appreciate any nudges in the right direction!


  2. Bruce Williams

    Bruce Williams Well-Known Member

    Re: Ankle ROM V's Stjt Rom

    Craig or I will post the abstract when we can, maybe later tonight.

    I won't comment further or I'll screw it up.

  3. Jackie Sweden

    Jackie Sweden Welcome New Poster

    Is it a new study? Being Swedish I'm even more eager to read that study, can you please post a message with author and title, so I can find the article.

  4. Bruce Williams

    Bruce Williams Well-Known Member

    ok, here is the abstract. Sorry, but could not figure out how to copy and paste the two diagrams. Hope this helps some at least

    Invasive in vivo description of the effect of foot orthoses on foot kinematics.
    Liu A, Nester CJ, Jones RK, Arndt T, Wolf P, Lundgren P, Lundberg A
    1Centre for Health, Sport and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Salford, UK.
    2 Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden,
    3 Sensory-Motor Systems Lab, ETH Zurich & University Zurich
    Web: http://www.healthcare.salford.ac.uk/research/, email: c.j.nester@salford.ac.uk

    Medially wedged and laterally wedge foot
    orthoses are frequently used in physical
    therapy. Apart from simple foot-leg or heel-leg
    interactions the biomechanical consequences
    of these are largely speculation. The specific
    effects of these orthoses on either subtalar or
    talocrural functions are difficult to describe in
    vivo. This paper reports on the effects of these
    two contrasting orthotic designs on foot
    kinematics using an invasive in vivo approach.

    Intracortical pins (with markers attached) were
    inserted into the tibia, calcaneus, talus,
    navicular, cuboid, medial cuneiform and first
    and fifth metatarsals. Four subjects walked in
    three conditions: shoes only, shoes with
    medially wedged orthosis; shoes with laterally
    wedged orthosis (fig 1). Cadence between
    trials was controlling using a metronome.
    Figure 1. Modified shoe and bone pins in situ.

    The mean difference between shod an orthotic
    conditions during the whole of stance was less
    than 2° in almost all cases. Maximum
    differences between shod and orthotic
    conditions were largely less than 4°. Greatest
    effect of the orthosis was seen at the
    talonavicular joint. Effects at other joints were
    comparable to each other. Data for the ankle
    (frontal) and talo-navicular (sagital) are in fig. 2
    (one subject).
    (+ve = inversion of talus rel. to tibia)
    (+ve = dorsiflexion of navic. relative to talus)

    Orthotic effect was less dramatic and
    systematic than clinical paradigms assume.
    Orthoses reduced/increased range of motion at
    all joints but the gross pattern of joint
    movement was not altered. The vast majority of
    effects on kinematics were small. Responses
    to the orthoses was highly person specific.
    Responses were complex and unsystematic in
    terms of the effect in each plane of motion, and
    how the effect at one joint related to that at
    adjacent joints. The effect of one orthoses was
    not accompanied by predictable and opposing
    effect of the alternative orthosis design. The
    effect of orthoses on leg vs. heel motion was
    largely as previously reported. However, the
    individual ankle and sub talar contributions was

Share This Page