The Journal of orthopaedic and sports physical therapy · 2006
Comparison of foot kinematics between subjects with posterior tibialis tendon dysfunction and healthy controls.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Tome Josh, Nawoczenski Deborah A, Flemister Adolph, Houck Jeff
Аннотация
STUDY DESIGN: A 2 x 4 mixed-design ANOVA with a fixed factor of group (posterior tibialis tendon dysfunction [PTTD] and asymptomatic controls), and a repeated factor of phase of stance (loading response, midstance, terminal stance, and preswing).
OBJECTIVE: To compare 3-dimensional stance period kinematics (rearfoot eversion/inversion, medial longitudinal arch [MLA] angle, and forefoot abduction) of subjects with stage II PTTD to asymptomatic controls.
BACKGROUND: Abnormal foot postures in subjects with stage II PTTD are clinical indicators of disease progression, yet dynamic investigations of forefoot, midfoot, and rearfoot kinematic deviations in this population are lacking.
METHODS: Fourteen subjects with stage II PTTD were compared to 10 control subjects with normal arch index values. Subjects were matched for age, gender, and body mass index. A 5-segment, kinematic model of the leg and foot was tracked using an Optotrak Motion Analysis System. The dependent kinematic variables were rearfoot inversion/eversion, forefoot abduction/adduction, and the MLA angle. An ANOVA model was used to compare kinematic variables between groups across 4 phases of stance.
RESULTS: Subjects with PTTD demonstrated significantly greater rearfoot eversion (P = .042), MLA angle (P = .008) and forefoot abduction angles (P < .005) during specific phases of stance. Subjects with PTTD demonstrated significantly greater rearfoot eversion (P<.004) and MLA angles (P < .009) by 6.2 degrees and 8.0 degrees, respectively, during loading response when compared to controls. During preswing, the subjects with PTTD demonstrated a significantly greater MLA angle (P < .002) and a forefoot abduction angle (P<.001) which exceeded that of the controls by 10.0 degrees.
CONCLUSIONS: The abnormal kinematics observed at the rearfoot, midfoot, and forefoot across all phases of stance implicate a failure of compensatory muscle and secondary ligamentous support to control foot kinematics in subjects with stage II PTTD.
OBJECTIVE: To compare 3-dimensional stance period kinematics (rearfoot eversion/inversion, medial longitudinal arch [MLA] angle, and forefoot abduction) of subjects with stage II PTTD to asymptomatic controls.
BACKGROUND: Abnormal foot postures in subjects with stage II PTTD are clinical indicators of disease progression, yet dynamic investigations of forefoot, midfoot, and rearfoot kinematic deviations in this population are lacking.
METHODS: Fourteen subjects with stage II PTTD were compared to 10 control subjects with normal arch index values. Subjects were matched for age, gender, and body mass index. A 5-segment, kinematic model of the leg and foot was tracked using an Optotrak Motion Analysis System. The dependent kinematic variables were rearfoot inversion/eversion, forefoot abduction/adduction, and the MLA angle. An ANOVA model was used to compare kinematic variables between groups across 4 phases of stance.
RESULTS: Subjects with PTTD demonstrated significantly greater rearfoot eversion (P = .042), MLA angle (P = .008) and forefoot abduction angles (P < .005) during specific phases of stance. Subjects with PTTD demonstrated significantly greater rearfoot eversion (P<.004) and MLA angles (P < .009) by 6.2 degrees and 8.0 degrees, respectively, during loading response when compared to controls. During preswing, the subjects with PTTD demonstrated a significantly greater MLA angle (P < .002) and a forefoot abduction angle (P<.001) which exceeded that of the controls by 10.0 degrees.
CONCLUSIONS: The abnormal kinematics observed at the rearfoot, midfoot, and forefoot across all phases of stance implicate a failure of compensatory muscle and secondary ligamentous support to control foot kinematics in subjects with stage II PTTD.