Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Meeting abstract
  • Open Access

Distal foot segment joint coupling patterns during walking gait

Journal of Foot and Ankle Research20147 (Suppl 1) :A94

https://doi.org/10.1186/1757-1146-7-S1-A94

  • Published:

Keywords

  • Transverse Plane
  • Frontal Plane
  • Stance Phase
  • Camera Motion
  • Repeat Measure ANOVAs

Background

Several surface based multi-segment foot models have been developed to investigate distal foot function during gait [1, 2]. However, the majority of the models have not defined medial and lateral forefoot or midfoot segments. In addition very little, is currently known regarding the coupling of the distal foot segments [3, 4]. The purpose of the current study, therefore, was to utilize a six foot segment model that includes both medial and lateral forefoot and midfoot segments to quantify the coupling between the distal foot segments during walking gait.

Methods

Ten participants (5 m, 5 f; mean age 22.7 ± 3.3 y) participated in the study. A 10 camera Motion Analysis system was used to capture three-dimensional positions of marker clusters located on the leg and six foot segments of interest (calcaneus, navicular, 1st and 2nd metatarsals, hallux, 4th and 5th metatarsals, cuboid). Following completion of 10 successful walking trials, joint coupling between adjacent segments of interest were investigated using vector coding. Repeated measures ANOVAs with one within-subject variable (stance subphase) were performed for each joint couple of interest to investigate joint coupling between stance subphases. Dependent t-tests were performed to investigate significant omnibus F ratios (α = 0.05).

Results

Significant joint coupling differences were revealed between stance subphases for the: calcaneonavicular complex sagittal plane and rearfoot complex sagittal plane; calcaneocuboid transverse plane and rearfoot complex transverse plane; medial forefoot sagittal plane and calcaneonavicular complex frontal plane; and lateral forefoot sagittal plane and calcaneocuboid frontal plane (Table 1).
Table 1

Coupling angles

Couple

Stance Subphase Coupling Direction (°)

Distal joint complex

Motion Plane

Proximal joint complex

Motion Plane

Loading response

Midstance

Terminal stance

Pre-swing

Calcaneonavicular

Frontal

Rearfoot

Frontal

149.45±30.98

234.34±50.18

232.74±72.60

243.19±134.42

Calcaneonavicular

Transverse

Rearfoot

Transverse

36.54±34.37

33.01±4.16

33.18±9.40

40.42±14.61

Calcaneocuboid

Sagittal

Rearfoot

Sagittal

149.67±44.46

214.90±107.08

225.71±108.97

211.40±41.84

Calcaneocuboid

Frontal

Rearfoot

Frontal

213.83±22.85

172.10±68.40

131.86±98.60

190.87±126.79

Calcaneocuboid

Transverse

Rearfoot

Transverse

287.89±98.31a

169.05±32.07a

150.01±19.73

160.40±45.48

Medial forefoot

Sagittal

Calcaneonavicular

Frontal

129.19±113.93

129.38±41.21b

182.49±43.12bc

256.82±19.86c

Lateral forefoot

Sagittal

Calcaneocuboid

Frontal

170.25±43.90

133.17±72.88

88.87±71.84c

230.62±90.23c

First MTP Sagittal

Medial forefoot

Sagittal

262.83±77.59

184.36±125.82

129.68±83.16

112.24±7.60

aSignificantly different loading response and midstance subphase coupling angles

bSignficantly different midstance and terminal stance subphase coupling angles

cSignficantly different terminal stance and pre-swing subphase coupling angles

Conclusions

These results are clinically relevant due to the fact that a number of previous studies investigating joint coupling have only calculated a single coupling angle between the segments of interest. The single coupling angle has then been assumed to represent the coupling relationship throughout the stance phase. The results of the current study, however, suggest that this assumption may not be valid for all the coupling relationships between the distal foot segments during walking gait.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by grants from the UW-Milwaukee College of Health Sciences and the Wisconsin Athletic Trainers’ Association.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Kinesiology, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI 53201, USA
(2)
Robin Bauer was a graduate student in the MS Kinesiology program at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee at the time of the study, USA

References

  1. Nigg B, Cole G, et al: Effects of arch height of the foot on angular motion of the lower extremities in running. Journal of Biomechanics. 1993, 26 (8): 909-916. 10.1016/0021-9290(93)90053-H.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Williams D, McClay I, et al: Lower extremity kinematics and kinetic differences in runners with high and low arches. J Appl Biomech. 2001, 17: 153-163.Google Scholar
  3. Bruening D, Cooney K, Buczek F: Analysis of a kinetic multi-segment foot model. Part I: Model repeatability and kinematic validity. Gait Posture. 2012, 35 (4): 529-34. 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2011.10.363.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Rankine L, Long J, et al: Multisegmental foot modeling: a review. Critical Reviews in Biomedical Engineering. 2008, 36 (2-3): 127-181. 10.1615/CritRevBiomedEng.v36.i2-3.30.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

Advertisement