Invasive in vivo measurement of rear-, mid- and forefoot motion during walking☆
Introduction
The kinematics of the foot and ankle during walking are a topic of great interest both from the biomechanical and clinical aspect. Previous clinical experimental research has provided descriptions of calcaneal motion relative to the leg, tibial rotation relative to the foot, and the motion of various definitions of ‘forefoot’ or ‘midfoot’ segments relative to the heel [1], [2], [3], [4]. These studies have utilised skin-mounted markers to derive information on the motion of bones or assumed rigid segments during walking. There are several difficulties with describing the foot and ankle in this way. Firstly, there is good evidence that skin movement artefacts are likely to reduce the validity of the kinematic data [5], [6], [7], although it is not clear how they affect different parts of the foot. Secondly, in dividing the foot into several separate segments, an assumption is made that several of the individual bones of the foot do not move relatively to each other, and there is evidence that this is unlikely [8]. Measurements based on this assumption either miss important kinematics between bones, or attribute motion to one joint when it actually occurs at another, which has not been measured. Finally, descriptions of foot and ankle kinematics may be incomplete because not all foot bones are included in the measurements. This is particularly the case for the talus, which is inaccessible in vivo without an invasive approach.
To avoid some of these pitfalls an invasive in vivo approach has been used in several studies [6], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. However, these data have been limited to assessment of the tibia, talus and calcaneus during walking/running and have not assessed the mid or forefoot. Cadaver models are an alternative [8], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19] but these inevitably involve some compromise in the extent to which in vivo gait can be replicated. The aim of this work, therefore, was to provide high quality in vivo kinematic data to describe rear, mid and forefoot kinematics during walking. The following bones were studied: tibia, fibula, talus, calcaneus, navicular, cuboid, medial cuneiform, first and fifth metatarsal.
Section snippets
Method
The study was approved by the ethical committee of the University Hospital and six male volunteers (mean age 38 years, range 28–55, mean weight 85 kg, range 71–110, mean height 180.5 cm, range 176–183) gave informed consent to participate.
Prior to the experimental procedure, the subjects were acquainted with the laboratory and 9.5 m walking track. They performed barefoot walking trials to determine their starting position, self-selected speed and preferred cadence. Walking consistency was assisted
Results
The stance times for subjects was between 0.62 and 0.73 s (S.D. all <0.024). The intra-subject coefficients of multiple correlations (CMC) for the vertical ground reaction forces were 0.90–0.99. The CMC is used to reflect the extent to which the pattern of the data was consistent across the ten trials. These CMC values are evidence that the subjects walked in repeatable manner.
The mean total range of motion at each of the 11 joints for each participant, and the corresponding standard deviation
Discussion
One obvious but important observation is the fact that there was motion in all the studied joints during walking, thus all the joints contributed to the motion of the foot in walking. This is reflected in the combined motion at the three joints of the medial arch (mean motion between metatarsal one and the talus was 17.6°, 9.6° and 14.7° in the sagittal, frontal and transverse planes, Table 1). The ankle is often assumed to be the primary source of sagittal plane motion within the foot, but in
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest regarding this work and the authors.
References (20)
- et al.
Three-dimensional kinematics of the forefoot, rearfoot, and leg without the function of tibialis posterior in comparison with normals during stance phase of walking
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)
(1999) - et al.
Kinematic analysis of a multi-segment foot model for research and clinical applications: a repeatability analysis
J Biomech
(2001) - et al.
Inter-segment foot motion and ground reaction forces over the stance phase of walking
Clin Biomech
(2001) - et al.
Position and orientation in space of bones during movement: experimental artefacts
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)
(1996) - et al.
Tibiocalcaneal motion during running, measured with external and bone markers
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)
(1997) - et al.
Rear-foot, mid-foot and fore-foot motion during the stance phase of gait
Gait Posture
(2007) - et al.
In vitro study of foot kinematics using a dynamic walking cadaver model
J Biomech
(2007) - et al.
The axes of rotation of the talocalcaneal and talonavicular joints
Foot
(1993) - et al.
Tibiocalcaneal kinematics of barefoot versus shod running
J Biomech
(2000) - et al.
A dynamic cadaver model of the stance phase of gait: performance characteristics and kinetic validation
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)
(1998)
Cited by (239)
Acute effect of foot strike patterns on in vivo tibiotalar and subtalar joint kinematics during barefoot running
2024, Journal of Sport and Health ScienceAddressing Medial Column Instability in Flatfoot Deformity
2023, Clinics in Podiatric Medicine and SurgeryFast tool to evaluate 3D movements of the foot-ankle complex using multi-view depth sensors
2023, Medicine in Novel Technology and DevicesBiomechanical Sequelae of Syndesmosis Injury and Repair
2023, Foot and Ankle ClinicsDoes temporary bridge plate fixation preserve joint motion after an unstable Lisfranc injury?
2023, Foot and Ankle SurgeryLisfranc Arthrodesis in Posttraumatic Chronic Injuries
2022, Foot and Ankle Clinics
- ☆
No benefits in any form have been received or will be received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article.