Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
J Biomech. 2014 Aug 22;47(11):2647-53. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2014.05.016. Epub 2014 Jun 6.

Effects of footwear on three-dimensional tibiotalar and subtalar joint motion during running.

Author information

1
Henry Ford Health Systems, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Bone and Joint Center, 2799 W. Grand Blvd, E&R 2015, Detroit, MI 48202, USA. Electronic address: cpeltz1@hfhs.org.
2
Henry Ford Health Systems, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Bone and Joint Center, 2799 W. Grand Blvd, E&R 2015, Detroit, MI 48202, USA.
3
Henry Ford Health Systems, Department of Public Health Sciences, 2799 W. Grand Blvd, E&R 2015, Detroit, MI 48202, USA.
4
Nike, Inc., Nike Sport Research Lab, Beaverton, OR, USA.

Abstract

Running is a popular form of recreation, but injuries are common and may be associated with abnormal joint motion. The objective of this study was to determine the effect of three footwear conditions - barefoot (BF), an ultraflexible training shoe (FREE), and a motion control shoe (MC) - on 3D foot and ankle motion. Dynamic, biplane radiographic images were acquired from 12 runners during overground running. 3D rotations of the tibiotalar and subtalar joints were quantified in terms of plantarflexion/dorsiflexion (PF/DF), inversion/eversion (IN/EV) and internal/external rotation (IR/ER). Across the early stance phase (defined as footstrike to heel-off), BF running demonstrated greater tibiotalar joint range of motion for PF/DF (28.2 ± 8.3°) and IR/ER (7.0 ± 1.4°) than the shod conditions (FREE: PF/DF=15.1 ± 5.9°, IR/ER=4.8 ± 2.1°; MC: PF/DF=15.0 ± 6.2°, IR/ER=4.3 ± 0.7°). Also at the tibiotalar joint, BF running resulted in a position significantly more plantarflexed (BF: 2.0 ± 12.5°, FREE: 15.7 ± 12.2°, MC: 16.5 ± 9.3°) and internally rotated (BF: 12.9 ± 4.5°, FREE: 10.7 ± 4.3°, MC: 10.6 ± 3.9°) at footstrike compared to both shod conditions. No differences were detected between the shod conditions at any point in the early stance phase at the tibiotalar joint. The MC condition demonstrated significant differences compared to FREE at several points throughout the early stance phase at the subtalar joint, with the greatest differences seen at 30% in PF/DF (MC -1.4 ± 8.8°: FREE: -0.5 ± 9.0°), IN/EV (MC -8.1 ± 5.7°: FREE -6.3 ± 5.5°) and IR/ER (MC -9.5 ± 5.3°: FREE: -8.7 ± 5.2°). These findings indicate that footwear has subtle effects on joint motion mainly between BF and shod conditions at the tibiotalar joint and between shod conditions at the subtalar joint.

KEYWORDS:

Barefoot; Dynamic; Kinematics; Minimalist; Motion control

PMID:
24957924
DOI:
10.1016/j.jbiomech.2014.05.016
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Elsevier Science
    Loading ...
    Support Center