Lower extremity kinematics in children with and without flexible flatfoot: a comparative study

Yi-Fen Shih, Chao-Yin Chen, Wen-Yin Chen, Hsiu-Chen Lin, Yi-Fen Shih, Chao-Yin Chen, Wen-Yin Chen, Hsiu-Chen Lin

Abstract

Background: A high percentage of young children present with flatfeet. Although the percentage of those with flatfeet declines with age, about 15% of the population maintains a flat arch. A reduction in longitudinal arch height usually combines with excessive subtalar joint pronation and may be related to other musculoskeletal problems of the lower extremity kinetic chain. The purpose of this study is to describe and compare the lower extremity kinematics between children with normal arches and those with flexible flatfeet, with the intent of providing practical information for decision making when treating children with flexible flatfeet.

Methods: Twenty children with flexible flatfeet (years age mean (SD), 9.7 (0.9) years) and 10 children with normal arches (yeas age mean (SD), 9.6 (1.2) years) were included. Kinematic data (maximum and minimum angles, and movement range, velocity, and excursion) of the hip, knee and rearfoot were collected during walking using Liberty Electromagnetic Tracking System. Kinematic variables were compared between the normal arches and flexible flatfeet groups using repeated measures mixed effects ANOVA.

Results: Movement patterns at the hip, knee and ankle joints were similar between children with flexible flatfeet and with normal arches. The results of ANOVA showed no significant main effect or interaction in any of the kinematic variables (P ≥ 0.05).

Conclusions: This study identified no kinematic adaptation during walking in children with flexible flatfoot. We suggested that future research should take the influence of the mid-foot and forefoot into consideration when examining lower extremity kinematics in children with flexible flatfoot.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Illustration of subject preparation for the walking test. One motion sensor is on the center of sacrum, and six other sensors are placed bilaterally at lower third of the lateral thigh, lower third of the medial shin, and the posterior surface of the calcaneus lateral to the insertion of Achilles tendon.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Movement pattern of ankle/foot complex. (A) Calcaneal dorsi-/plantarflexion, (B) eversion/inversion, and (C) internal/external rotation in children with (n = 20) and without (n = 10) flexible flatfoot during the stance phase (0-60% of the gait cycle) of comfortable walking. The standard deviations are shown in one direction.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Movement pattern of the knee joint. (A) Extension/flexion, (B) valgus/varus, and (C) internal/external rotation in children with (n = 20) and without (n = 10) flexible flatfoot during the stance phase (0-60% of the gait cycle) of comfortable walking. The standard deviations are shown in one direction.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Movement pattern of the hip joint. (A) Flexion/extension, (B) abduction/adduction, and (C) internal/external rotation in children with (n = 20) and without (n = 10) flexible flatfoot during the stance phase (0-60% of the gait cycle) of comfortable walking. The standard deviations are shown in one direction.

References

    1. Bordelon RL. Hypermobile flatfoot in children. Comprehension, evaluation, and treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1983;181:7–14.
    1. Kuhn DR, Shibley NJ, Austin WM, Yochum TR. Radiographic evaluation of weight-bearing orthotics and their effect on flexible pes planus. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1999;22:221–226. doi: 10.1016/S0161-4754(99)70048-5.
    1. El O, Akcali O, Kosay C, Kaner B, Arslan Y, Sagol E. et al.Flexible flatfoot and related factors in primary school children: a report of a screening study. Rheumatol Int. 2006;26:1050–1053. doi: 10.1007/s00296-006-0128-1.
    1. Lin CJ, Lai KA, Kuan TS, Chou YL. Correlating factors and clinical significance of flexible flatfoot in preschool children. J Pediatr Orthop. 2001;21:378–382.
    1. Pfeiffer M, Kotz R, Ledl T, Hauser G, Sluga M. Prevalence of flat foot in preschool-aged children. Pediatrics. 2006;118:634–639. doi: 10.1542/peds.2005-2126.
    1. Volpon JB. Footprint analysis during the growth period. J Pediatr Orthop. 1994;14:83–85. doi: 10.1097/01241398-199401000-00017.
    1. Garcia-Rodriguez A, Martin-Jimenez F, Carnero-Varo M, Gomez-Gracia E, Gomez-Aracena J, Fernandez-Crehuet J. Flexible flat feet in children: a real problem? Pediatrics. 1999;103:e84. doi: 10.1542/peds.103.6.e84.
    1. Levinger P, Murley GS, Barton CJ, Cotchett MP, McSweeney SR, Menz HB. A comparison of foot kinematics in people with normal- and flat-arched feet using the Oxford Foot Model. Gait Posture. 2010;32:519–523. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2010.07.013.
    1. Tiberio Z. The effect of excessive subtalar joint pronation on patellofemoral mechanics: A theoretical model. J Orthop Sports Phys Therapy. 1987;9:160–165.
    1. Tome J, Nawoczenski DA, Flemister A, Houck J. Comparison of foot kinematics between subjects with posterior tibialis tendon dysfunction and healthy controls. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2006;36:635–644.
    1. Donatelli RA, Hurlburt C, Conaway D, St Pierre R. Biomechanical foot orthotics: a retrospective study. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1988;10:205–212.
    1. Smart GW, Taunton JE, Clement DB. Achilles tendon disorders in runner --a review. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1980;12:231–243.
    1. Highlander P, Sung W, Weil L Jr. Subtalar arthroereisis. Clin Podiatr Med Surg. 2011;28:745–754. doi: 10.1016/j.cpm.2011.08.004.
    1. Dennis KJ, Cooke RA, Valmassy RL, Weed JH. Biplane Posting Elevator. A new method of rearfoot post application. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 1985;75:272–274.
    1. McCulloch MU, Brunt D, Vander Linden D. The effect of foot orthotics and gait velocity on lower limb kinematics and temporal events of stance. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1993;17:2–10.
    1. Nawoczenski DA, Saltzman CL, Cook TM. The effect of foot structure on the three-dimensional kinematic coupling behavior of the leg and rear foot. Phys Ther. 1998;78:404–416.
    1. Pohl MB, Messenger N, Buckley JG. Changes in foot and lower limb coupling due to systematic variations in step width. Clin Biomech. 2006;21:175–183. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2005.09.005.
    1. Palmer ML, Epler M. Clinical Assessment Procedures in Physical Therapy. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Co; 1990.
    1. Baker R. ISB recommendation on definition of joint coordinate systems for the reporting of human joint motion-part I: ankle, hip and spine. J Biomech. 2003;36:300–302. doi: 10.1016/S0021-9290(02)00336-6.
    1. Grood ES, Suntay WJ. A joint coordinate system for the clinical description of three-dimensional motions: application to the knee. J Biomech Eng. 1983;105:136–144. doi: 10.1115/1.3138397.
    1. Eng JJ, Pierrynowski MR. The effect of soft foot orthotics on three-dimensional lower-limb kinematics during walking and running. Phys Ther. 1994;74:836–844.
    1. Mills PM, Barrett RS. Swing phase mechanics of healthy young and elderly men. Hum Mov Sci. 2001;20:427–446. doi: 10.1016/S0167-9457(01)00061-6.
    1. Mills PM, Morrison S, Lloyd DG, Barrett RS. Repeatability of 3D gait kinematics obtained from an electromagnetic tracking system during treadmill locomotion. J Biomech. 2007;40:1504–1511. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2006.06.017.
    1. Gibson T, Jeffery RS, Bakheit AM. Comparison of three definitions of the mid-stance and mid-swing events of the gait cycle in children. Disabil Rehabil. 2006;28:625–628. doi: 10.1080/09638280500276448.
    1. Ganley KJ, Powers CM. Gait kinematics and kinetics of 7-year-old children: a comparison to adults using age-specific anthropometric data. Gait Posture. 2005;21:141–145. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2004.01.007.
    1. Rao UB, Joseph B. The influence of footwear on the prevalence of flat foot. A survey of 2300 children. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1992;74:525–527.
    1. Riegger-Krugh C, Keysor JJ. Skeletal malalignments of the lower quarter: correlated and compensatory motions and postures. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1996;23:164–170.
    1. Wolf S, Simon J, Patikas D, Schuster W, Armbrust P, Doderlein L. Foot motion in children shoes: a comparison of barefoot walking with shod walking in conventional and flexible shoes. Gait Posture. 2008;27:51–59. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2007.01.005.
    1. Twomey D, McIntosh AS, Simon J, Lowe K, Wolf SI. Kinematic differences between normal and low arched feet in children using the Heidelberg foot measurement method. Gait Posture. 2010;32:1–5. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2010.01.021.
    1. Hunt AE, Smith RM. Mechanics and control of the flat versus normal foot during the stance phase of walking. Clin Biomech. 2004;19:391–397. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2003.12.010.
    1. Kernozek TW, Ricard MD. Foot placement angle and arch type: effect on rearfoot motion. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1990;71:988–991.
    1. Williams D, McClay IS, Hamill J, Buchanan TS. Lower extremity kinematic and kinetic differences in runners with high and low arches. J Appl Biomech. 2001;17:153–163.
    1. Nigg BM, Khan A, Fisher V, Stefanyshyn D. Effect of shoe insert construction on foot and leg movement. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1998;30:550–555. doi: 10.1097/00005768-199804000-00013.
    1. Bellchamber TL, van den Bogert AJ. Contributions of proximal and distal moments to axial tibial rotation during walking and running. J Biomech. 2000;33:1397–1403. doi: 10.1016/S0021-9290(00)00113-5.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorit ja yhteistyökumppanit

Sairaudet

Huumeiden interventiot

3
Tilaa