Volume 5 Supplement 1

3rd Congress of the International Foot and Ankle Biomechanics Community

Open Access

The effect of footwear on multi-segment foot kinematics during running

  • Robin L Bauer1Email author,
  • Mukta N Joshi1,
  • Trevor R Klinkner1 and
  • Stephen C Cobb1
Journal of Foot and Ankle Research20125(Suppl 1):O2

DOI: 10.1186/1757-1146-5-S1-O2

Published: 10 April 2012

Background

Footwear is intended to prevent lower extremity injuries caused by excessive foot-ground impacts and faulty mechanics. However, no clear relationship between shoe habits and injury risk has been established [1]. Many studies have examined barefoot versus shod running kinematics, but the results have been equivocal [2, 3]. A factor in the inconsistent results could be the relationship between foot structure and function. For example, Cobb et al. demonstrated significant walking gait kinematic differences between participants with typical and low arch foot structures using a multi-segment foot model [4]. The purpose of this study was to investigate effects of footwear on multi-segment foot kinematics during running in participants with low arch structure.

Materials and methods

Five healthy participants (26.8 ± 9.01 yrs; 171.5 ± 9.85 cm; 71.61 ± 15.46 kg) with low arch structure completed 10 running trials at 4.0 (±10%) m/s in flat sandal and barefoot conditions. Marker clusters placed on the skin or custom-built wands identified six functional articulations: rearfoot complex (RC), calcaneonavicular complex (CNC), calcaneocuboid joint (CC), medial forefoot (MFF), lateral forefoot (LFF), and 1st metatarsophalangeal complex (MTP). Repeated measures MANOVAs (α ≤ 0.05) were used to analyze within-subject sagittal, frontal and transverse plane range of motion (ROM) and initial contact position differences between footwear conditions for the RC, CNC, and CC articulations. Dependent t-tests (α ≤ 0.05) were performed to assess MTP, MFF and LFF articulation sagittal plane ROM differences between the footwear conditions.

Results

ROM between conditions are shown in Table 1 and initial contact positions are shown in Table 2.
Table 1

ROM mean ± SD results for Sagittal, Frontal and Transverse planes of motion

 

Barefoot

Flat

 

Sagittal Plane

Frontal Plane

Transverse Plane

Sagittal Plane

Frontal Plane

Transverse Plane

RC

22.16 ± 3.18

8.33 ± 1.72

16.99 ± 1.92

20.44 ± 5.30

8.10 ± 2.92

13.98 ± 2.95

CNC

10.85 ± 2.57

8.11 ± 2.67

6.35 ± 1.72

9.39 ± 4.02

6.14 ± 4.33

7.44 ± 2.35

CC

18.66 ± 1.86

9.69 ± 2.44

8.88 ± 2.92

14.48± 5.35

7.02 ± 2.75

7.45 ± 1.45

MFF

20.90 ± 4.68

 

20.14 ± 3.60

 

MTP

41.35 ± 5.39*

 

33.33 ± 1.76*

 

LFF

7.68 ± 3.19

 

9.34 ± 2.52

 

*indicates a significant difference (p < 0.05) between footwear conditions.

Table 2

Significant initial contact positions (p < 0.05) mean ± SD results between footwear conditions.

 

Barefoot

Flat

 

Sagittal Plane

Frontal Plane

Transverse Plane

Sagittal Plane

Frontal Plane

Transverse Plane

CNC

2.81 ± 4.17

.38 ± 2.52

-1.53 ± 3.03*

1.51 ± 2.67

.07 ± 5.22

-4.34 ± 3.38*

CC

5.46 ± 7.60

-2.08 ± 2.84

-3.37 ± 3.23*

3.08 ± 4.03

2.60 ± 4.26

2.50 ± 1.97*

MTP

-14.12 ± 10.38*

 

-2.54 ± 7.63*

 

*indicates a significant difference (p < 0.05) between footwear conditions.

Conclusions

Runners alter their gait from shod to barefoot running. The ROM differences suggest runners adapt by increasing motion during stance phase. Initial contact positions demonstrate differences in strike pattern. Higher sagittal plane values for barefoot trials may indicate more midfoot/forefoot landing. These data may enhance the understanding of shoe-wear and running-related injuries.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by a grant from the UW-Milwaukee Graduate School.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Kinesiology, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

References

  1. Wen D: Risk factors for overuse injuries in runners. Curr Sports Med Rep. 2007, 6: 307-313. 10.1007/s11932-007-0067-y.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. De Wit B, Clercq D, Aerts P: Biomechanical analysis of the stance phase during barefoot and shod running. J Biomech. 2000, 33: 269-278. 10.1016/S0021-9290(99)00192-X.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Lieberman D, Venkadesan M, Werbel W, Daoud A, Andrea S, Davis I, Mang’Eni R, Pitsiladis Y: Foot strike patterns and collision forces in habitually barefoot versus shod runners. Nature. 2010, 463: 531-535. 10.1038/nature08723.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Cobb S, Tis L, Johnson J, Wang Y, Geil M, McCarty F: The effect of low-mobile foot posture on multi-segment medial foot model gait kinematics. Gait Posture. 2009, 30: 334-339. 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2009.06.005.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Bauer et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2012

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Advertisement