Effect of plano-valgus foot posture on midfoot kinematics during barefoot walking in an adolescent population

Table 1 Review of the literature on functional evaluation of the pediatric PV during gait using multisegment foot models

Study	Model	population & age (years)	hindfoot/tibia	forefoot/hindfoot	MLA
Twomey et al. Gait & Posture, 2010 [15]	Heidelberg	n = 27 age = 11.2 ± 1.2		+supination	+drop
Hosl et al. Gait & Posture, 2014 [13]	Oxford Foot Model	n = 21 age = 11.0 ± 2.6	-dorsiflexion	+sagittal ROM
			+eversion	+supination
			-frontal ROM	+abduction
Saraswat et al. Gait & Posture, 2014 [16]	Saraswat^a	n = 10 age = 10.6 ± 1.6	+max eversion	+dorsiflexion
Saraswat et al. Gait & Posture, 2014 [16]	Saraswat^a	n = 10 age = 10.6 ± 1.6	+plantarflexion	+pronation
Kerr et al. Clin. Biomech., 2015 [17]	Oxford Foot Model	n = 29 age = 10.7 ± 3.5	+eversion	+abduction
Kerr et al. Clin. Biomech., 2015 [17]	Oxford Foot Model	n = 29 age = 10.7 ± 3.5	+eversion	+supination
Kothari et al. Gait & Posture, 2015 [18]	Oxford Foot Model	n = 42 age = 11.9 ± 2.0	+eversion	+supination

Hindfoot/tibia, forefoot/hindfoot and MLA (medial longitudinal arch) columns show significant increase (+) or decrease (−) in gait kinematic parameters with respect to the control group reported in the study. For each study, only asymptomatic flat-foot samples have been listed in the population column
^amodified Shriners Hospitals for Greenville foot model

ISSN: 1757-1146