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.

Important Historical Biomechanics Papers

Discussion in 'Biomechanics, Sports and Foot orthoses' started by Kevin Kirby, Nov 6, 2011.


  1. Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.
    Colleagues:

    The earliest paper on the subtalar joint axis was done in 1955 by a German author, Henke. I have often seen the reference for this paper but have never been able to get the paper and have it translated.

    If someone could provide me with a copy of this paper, then I will pay someone to have it translated into English and post it up here on Podiatry Arena so those of us who are not fluent in German can use this paper in our lectures and papers when we discuss subtalar joint biomechanics.

    Here is the best description of the paper that I currently have:

    Henke W: Die Bewegung des Fusses am Sprungbein. Zeitschrift für rationelle Medizin, Neue Folge, 7:225-234, 1855.

    Thanks in advance.:drinks
     
  2. Re: Henke's Original Paper on STJ Axis

    Speaking of old papers, I just found one by Herbert Elftman that I never knew existed.

    Cool!!

    Elftman H, Dynamic structure of the human foot. Artificial Limbs, 13:49-58, 1969.
     

    Attached Files:

  3. davidh

    davidh Podiatry Arena Veteran

    Re: Henke's Original Paper on STJ Axis

    Didn't Manter do some work on the STJ axis in the early 1940's?
     
  4. Re: Henke's Original Paper on STJ Axis

    Manter's paper was from 1941, to be exact. For some reason, however, other authors have treated Henke's paper as being more insightful on the postion of the axis than Manter's, that is why I wanted to see it. However, Manter's paper seems to predate Henke's by 14 years so you are right..I was getting my dates mixed up.
     
  5. David Wedemeyer

    David Wedemeyer Well-Known Member

    Re: Henke's Original Paper on STJ Axis

    Kevin,

    In reading the Elftman paper, the meaning of one section headed the Transverse Tarsal Joint is evading me. Hopefully someone can explain this to me, no idea why I'm having so much trouble with it? Thanks in advance:

     
  6. Re: Henke's Original Paper on STJ Axis

    David:

    Henke's paper was from 1855, not 1955!!!!:eek:
     
  7. Re: Henke's Original Paper on STJ Axis

    Special thanks to Dr. Vincent Hetherington for finding me the original text on Henke's 1855 paper on the subtalar joint.:drinks

    Here is the link Dr. Hetherington gave me:

    http://www.archive.org/details/zeitschriftfuer73unkngoog

    I have also attached the original German text, the Google translation and the pdf.

    Could someone who is fluent in German edit this translation for me so that this important paper can be posted up here on Podiatry Arena for others to access in the future? Hint, hint....Mimi

    I don't know what happened to the illustrations?:craig::confused:
     

    Attached Files:

  8. davidh

    davidh Podiatry Arena Veteran

    Re: Henke's Original Paper on STJ Axis

    In which case I can see why you are so interested in that particular paper.
    The earlier date also makes it historically significant to our profession - thanks for flagging it up:drinks
     
  9. Re: Henke's Original Paper on STJ Axis

    Here's a four part series on the anatomy of the talus from 1904.
     

    Attached Files:

  10. John Hicks: My Favorite Early Biomechanics Author

    I have just put all of the papers from John Hicks onto pdf format for all of you students and clinicians to read.

    It was Hicks' paper from 50 years ago, "The Three Weigthbearing Mechanisms of the Foot", that literally changed the way I thought when I first read it during podiatry school in 1981. I can honestly say that reading the works of John Hicks and Benno Nigg during the 1980's allowed me to bring my level of understanding to a much higher level than if I had only read papers and books from the podiatric medical literature.

    I recommend you read each of the papers by Hicks in chronological order to see for yourself how forward-thinking this man was for his time. John Hicks is my favorite early foot biomechanics author. These are great papers!!

    I couldn't upload the last two papers so I have put them all on my website for convenient download. http://www.box.net/shared/z9vvdj6lt8

    Hicks JH: The mechanics of the foot. I. The joints. J Anatomy. 87:25-31, 1953.

    Hicks JH: The mechanics of the foot. II. The plantar aponeurosis and the arch. J Anatomy. 88:24-31, 1954.

    Hicks JH: The foot as a support. Acta Anatomica, 25:34-45, 1955.

    Hicks JH: The mechanics of the foot IV. The action of muscles on the foot in standing. Acta. Anatomica, 27:180-192,1956.

    Hicks, J.H. The Three Weight Bearing Mechanisms of the Foot. Pages 161-191 in F.G. Evans (ed): Biomechanical Studies of the Musculoskeletal System. C.C. Thomas Co., Springfield, Ill. 1961.
     

    Attached Files:

  11. efuller

    efuller MVP

    Re: John Hicks: My Favorite Early Biomechanics Author

    I remember starting the CCPM fellowship and someone asking me what where did I learn the most biomechanics. I said it was
    Hicks JH: The mechanics of the foot IV. The action of muscles on the foot in standing. Acta. Anatomica, 27:180-192,1956.
    I remember coming back to this paper months later for a second read and being amazed at how much good stuff that I missed. I even picked up more in the third read.

    Van Laangalan was good too.
    Eric
     
  12. Re: John Hicks: My Favorite Early Biomechanics Author

    Which can be found here - van Langelaan EJ.

    Acta Orthop Scand Suppl. 1983;204:1-269.
     
  13. Dananberg

    Dananberg Active Member

    Re: John Hicks: My Favorite Early Biomechanics Author

    JH Hicks is one of my all time biomechanics heros. As short as these are, they are so full of information that I read them many times in my early practice days. Any students who have not read the originals should get right to these. A world of valuable information.

    Kevin....excellent post.

    Howard
     
  14. The Papers of Dr. Merton Root

    I have scoured my collection of papers and have come up with many of the papers from Dr. Merton L. Root that I have collected over the past 30 years. Most of these papers have been published elsewhere but one, as far as I know, was never published. These papers are a must-read for anyone interested in the history of podiatric biomechanics and foot orthosis therapy. If some papers are not attached, these papers can also be downloaded on my website.

    http://www.box.net/shared/z9vvdj6lt8

    Root ML: Foot types in children. Unpublished manuscript. Circa 1965?.

    Root ML, Weed JH, Sgarlato TE, Bluth DR: Axis of motion of the subtalar joint. JAPA, 56:149, 1966.

    Root ML: How was the Root functional orthotic developed? Podiatry Arts Lab Newsletter, Pekin, Illinois, Fall 1981.

    Root ML: Indications for the use of functional orthoses. Podiatry Arts Lab Newsletter. Pekin, Illinois, Winter 1982.

    Root ML: Development of the functional orthosis. Clinics in Podiatric Medicine and Surgery, 11:183-210, 1994.
     

    Attached Files:

  15. Dr. John Weed's CCPM Biomechanics II Syllabus

    John Weed, DPM, taught the 2nd year course in Podiatric Biomechanics at the California College of Podiatric Medicine in San Francisco for about 15 years while I was a student there from 1979-1983 and during my Biomechanics Fellowship in 1984-1985. For most of you, who never had the privilege of meeting this great man, Dr. Weed was my mentor and friend. He greatly shaped my understanding of foot and lower extremity function and was for me, the model podiatric physician.

    Hope you enjoy his 112 page syllabus. Since I couldn't upload it here to Podiatry Arena, I have uploaded it instead to my website.

    http://www.box.net/shared/z9vvdj6lt8

    Weed J: Biomechanics II Syllabus. California College of Podiatric Medicine, San Francisco, Circa 1987.
     
  16. David Smith

    David Smith Well-Known Member

    Re: The Papers of Dr. Merton Root

    Kevin

    Brilliant! Thanks, I've always read most of Root et al 2nd hand but getting the original or right to the root (excuse the pun) as you might say will be really useful.

    How would we know?:D

    Regards Dave Smith
     
  17. Re: The Papers of Dr. Merton Root

    Dave:

    This paper was too large to attach so it is available on my website instead:

    Root ML: Development of the functional orthosis. Clinics in Podiatric Medicine and Surgery, 11:183-210, 1994.
     
  18. Re: The Papers of Dr. Merton Root

    Here is reference to the paper that I left out of the original list.

    Root ML: Functional orthoses: hype or help? Pacesetter Magazine, California College of Podiatric Medicine, 2 (1):6-12, March-April 1982.
     
  19. Re: The Papers of Dr. Merton Root

    After reading these papers written by Dr. Root, anyone come to any opinions about Dr. Root or are any of you surprised at what he wrote?
     
  20. Griff

    Griff Moderator

    Re: The Papers of Dr. Merton Root

    I've only skimmed a couple of them so far, but what immediately strikes me is how poorly quoted Dr Root has been. By this I mean that most people's (including my own) interpretation of what 'Rootian' mechanics is seems to be quite different to what it actually was as stated by the man himself. Almost like a 50 year game of Chinese whispers.
     
  21. Re: The Papers of Dr. Merton Root

    And that's the key Ian. My generation, late 1980's early 90's, were taught a sort of bastardised Root; popularised in the UK by Langer. Your generation were taught the same, often by my generation- hence the extra dilution.

    Bob Kidd or Sid Kippen will help me out here I've no doubt, but there were also a series of papers pubilished in "The Chiropodist" which were basically a "translation" of Root for the busy UK Chiropodist: one on forefoot varus; one on forefoot valgus; one on rearfoot varus; one on rearfoot valgus. Later, I also had a photocopied copy of Sgarlatto to work from.


    At Plymouth they had a "biomechanics handbook" based on this and other cack, with a statement saying the subtalar joint pronated because the centre of pressure is medial to the subtalar joint axis at strike in rearfoot valgus. You can imagine how popular I was with the old school when I pointed out the error in this statement and line of thinking.:bang: Yet, these days I'd actually argue for that statement as being a possible... but that is not what they had in mind, the concept of force as a vector would have left them completely.


    While I've no desire to return to the foot-type approach of Root, I am glad that the current generations are being exposed to the original work. Read and critique. Don't read and accept as we were expected to do.:drinks
     
  22. Re: The Papers of Dr. Merton Root

    Simon and Ian:

    Your comments express exactly the reasons why I wanted to provide these papers written by "the man" himself. In other words, I wanted people to be actually read his own words, rather than reading what others interpreted from his work without ever hearing it directly from him. I have reread some of these articles by Dr. Root over the past few days [since I hadn't read them for at least 10 years]. Reading them again is just like being at one of Dr. Root's lectures....he said many of these same things over and over again in his lectures.

    Merton Root was a brilliant man and was way ahead of his time. He certainly was not perfect. However, he also doesn't deserve much of the criticism that is often thrown his way from people who never met him or who attended any of his lectures.
     
  23. David Wedemeyer

    David Wedemeyer Well-Known Member

    Re: The Papers of Dr. Merton Root

    Kevin,

    Making these available to us is huge and as a non-podiatrist, I would never have access to Dr.. Root's (or Weed's) original work anywhere else. I can't thank you enough.
     
  24. Bruce Williams

    Bruce Williams Well-Known Member

    Re: Dr. John Weed's CCPM Biomechanics II Syllabus

    and the password is?
    bruce
     
  25. Re: The Papers of Dr. Merton Root

    Here is another one of Dr. Root's papers.
     

    Attached Files:

  26. Re: The Papers of Dr. Merton Root

    Thanks Kevin for making these available

    Since realizing that I was taught a bastardised version of Root and then used in practice for a decade or so I have on my things to do list.

    A long sit down to read -which I do have a copy of [​IMG] I guess now a few more papers to add to the things to do list.

    Thanks again
     
  27. Rob Kidd

    Rob Kidd Well-Known Member

    Re: The Papers of Dr. Merton Root

    MMMmm - Why is it always left to me? Look Guys, Root had a huge role in our past, a huge place in our history, but. And the but is that much of his work - and I am not a Root historian - was poor quality science. Yes, I know, I am being iconoclastic, but it needs to be said.

    For instance, Do you really think that the paper on S/T jt axis position would be accepted into the journal of Biomechanics, then or now? It would be laughed out of town. Another, more dear to my own heart, is the paper (unpublished, even) on foot types in children; here we are given an unreferenced account of opinion, yet it gives a list of references at the end, not noted in the text. I know this is a million years ago, but statements such as that on page 7 (or is it 11 - cannnot tell) regarding the ontogentic changes in talar head torsion angle were then, and still are without foundation. Any comment on ontogeny needs to be discussed in the contect of heterachronic modelling and phylogeny. I forget the date of the publication of this paper, but it was not very far removed from Professor Lisowski's definitive paper on talar angles of 1967 - no mention.

    This work has an interesting place in the history books - it is where it belongs. Please, please, do not bring it out as science - we will be a laughing stock.


    I hope not to offend, but inform. Rob
     
  28. Re: The Papers of Dr. Merton Root

    Rob I´m not sure anyone is saying that Root is the science, but probably everyone outside of the school of Podiatry in California got taught a bastardised version of Root.

    So while not the way forward is not better to understand and learn about our past from the papers and books written rather than a bastardised version ?
     
  29. Rob Kidd

    Rob Kidd Well-Known Member

    Re: The Papers of Dr. Merton Root

    You may be right vis: a bastardisation of Root, you may not be, I do not know. However, I am a little concerned at the thought process: "Oh, if only you had listened to the right gospel - things would be different". As a matter of interest, I wrote to Root in 1991, not long after my arrival in Australia, asking about these very issues. I am still awaiting the reply. The whole issue of ontegenetic changes is incredibly complex, and, frankly, requires a deep understanding of key biological concepts which I suspect were (are?) lacking at the time of the Root genesis.
     
  30. efuller

    efuller MVP

    Re: The Papers of Dr. Merton Root

    From the hype or help article, near the end under the heading evaluating orthoses.

    I can see how some might think that the orthosis was supposed to put the foot in neutral position from reading this paper. I've heard people claim that Root et al never said that the orthosis was supposed to put the foot in neutral position. Bu,t there it is in black and white.

    Yes, Root et al contributed a lot. My feet have benefited greatly from their work. But, there were some inconsistencies in his writings.

    Eric
     
  31. Classic J.H. Hicks: The Three Weight-Bearing Mechanisms of the Foot

    I have just purchased the original book where one of my all-time favorite foot biomechanics article was published. This clean copy of this classic article by John H. Hicks is a must-read for any clinician interested in foot and lower extremity biomechanics.

    When I read this article for the first time while I was a podiatry student about 30 years ago, I can remember the joy I had in finally finding a scientific article that explained foot mechanics relative to the motions and position of the center of mass to the foot. This article has probably changed the course of my thinking about foot and lower extremity biomechanics more than any article I have ever read during my career.

    I highly recommend reading this excellent article at least two times.

    Hicks JH: The Three Weight Bearing Mechanisms of the Foot. In F.G. Evans (ed): Biomechanical Studies of the Musculoskeletal System. C.C. Thomas Co., Springfield, Ill., pp. 161-191, 1961.
     

    Attached Files:

  32. Re: Classic J.H. Hicks: The Three Weight-Bearing Mechanisms of the Foot

    Thanks for thje link Kevin. some useful information. made me understand things a little better
     
  33. User7

    User7 Active Member

    Re: Classic J.H. Hicks: The Three Weight-Bearing Mechanisms of the Foot

    Many thanks for scanning and posting this here Kevin.
     
  34. Jeff Root

    Jeff Root Well-Known Member

    Re: The Papers of Dr. Merton Root

    Eric,

    You appear to be distorting this statement. What do you mean by “put”? It does not say the orthosis is supposed to “put” the foot in the neutral position, does it? Where does it specifically say that?

    You quote said: "During locomotion, an effective functional ortosis will allow a foot to pronate normally after heel strike. Before heel lift, howerver, the orthosis will guide the foot back to a neutral or slightly supinated position."

    Keeping the quote in the true context of what Root said and believed, is that during ideal (normal) gait the foot should strike the ground with the STJ in a slightly supinated position and then pronate until the foot becomes pronated at the STJ; then it should begin to resupinate and achieve a supinated position at the STJ during propulsion. During midstance, just prior to heel lift he believed that the ideal foot should be actively supinating at the STJ (i.e. the STJ is in motion!) and that it should be at near the neutral position at that point in time (i.e. moment in gait) as motion continues in the direction supination. STJ neutral is a momentary event just as the second hand on a clock points momentarily at a number on the face of the clock as the hand continues its path in a clockwise direction. Hence, his goal with a functional orthosis was to attempt to restore ideal motion as much as possible.

    For some reason, you continue to try to imply a static, not dynamic model. Why? Once again I need to remind you that Root’s goal with a functional orthosis was to restore ideal or optimal motion as much as clinically possible with an in shoe device. He often stated that if an orthosis could prevent a foot from remaining maximally pronated during propulsion, the device was likely to significantly reduce pathology even if ideal motion wasn't achieved with the device. He did not want nor expect the STJ to stay in any one position, be that it supinated, neutral or pronated. I think your comment only helps prove how bastardized the teaching of Root have become.

    Respectfully,
    Jeff
     
  35. Narelle

    Narelle Member

    Re: Dr. John Weed's CCPM Biomechanics II Syllabus

    Hi Kevin, can we please have the password??????
    Narelle
     
  36. Bill Bird

    Bill Bird Active Member

    Re: Classic J.H. Hicks: The Three Weight-Bearing Mechanisms of the Foot

    Kevin
    I've been compiling the developmental history of the understanding of the foot from 1795 until the present day and using it to find influence in the development of the shape of footwear lasts over the same period. In the past you have come up with many of these classic seminal papers and here is another one. I just want to thank you for putting these out.
    Bill Bird
     
  37. efuller

    efuller MVP

    Re: The Papers of Dr. Merton Root

    Jeff, you are distorting what I said. I said that some could read that sentence and think that the orthosis should put the STJ neutral position. I stand by that. There are a lot of people who believe that's what Mert believed. Some of them may think that from having read that sentence.

    Eric
     
  38. Re: Dr. John Weed's CCPM Biomechanics II Syllabus

    You may e-mail me privately for the password.

    kevinakirby@comcast.net
     
  39. Jeff Root

    Jeff Root Well-Known Member

    Re: The Papers of Dr. Merton Root

    Eric,

    You said "there you have it in black and white" as if to say that this proves that Root said we should put the foot in neutral. I suppose using the same logic, you could say that some people think that Root said you should put the STJ 1 degree supinated and one degree pronated, since in order to go from supinated to pronated, you would have to reach these positions as well. But that's not "how" Root said it nor is it how he wanted clinicians to think in terms of functional orthotic therapy. The inference is equally misleading in both cases.

    Jeff
     
  40. Re: The Papers of Dr. Merton Root

    Gentlemen:

    The bottom line is that I never heard Mert Root say, or heard anyone else tell me that he said, that a foot orthosis would "hold" the subtalar joint (STJ) in the neutral position. To my knowledge, also, he never wrote those words.

    I do, however, remember him lecturing on the fact that his functional foot orthosis would help the patient with the pronated foot reach the STJ neutral sooner in late midstance or propulsion and would help the foot have more pronation motion during contact phase by taking the foot out of the maximally pronated position at contact and putting the foot closer to the neutral at heel contact. Therefore, for someone to say that Mert Root taught the concept that the "orthotic holds the foot in neutral position" is totally contrary to what I heard the man lecture on and to what he wrote in the medical literature.

    However, with that being said, Mert Root did teach some things that I don't agree with at all. In addition, unfortunately, he wrote so little on the intricacies of foot orthosis therapy and how orthoses actually work that we don't really know much, except hearing second-hand from people who attended his lectures, as to how he felt his foot orthoses worked from a mechanical aspect and neuromotor aspect.

    Possibly the basic lack of specific information in Dr. Root's own written words is the reason that there is so much "bastardization" of what Mert Root said in regards to how foot orthoses actually worked and mechanically accomplished for the foot and lower extremity. He probably simply didn't put enough of his thoughts down on paper on foot orthosis mechanics for us to completely understand whether his thoughts on the subject were realistic, rational and mechanically sound.

    I don't necessarily consider this a fault of the man, since he wrote more on the subject of foot orthoses than 99+% of all podiatrists of his time. However, I believe you will not find any mechanically coherent description of how foot orthoses actually work that were written by Dr. Root within the currently available medical literature.

    Jeff, please correct me if you think otherwise.

    Happy Thanksgiving!:drinks
     
Loading...

Share This Page