Limits...
The role of tibialis posterior fatigue on foot kinematics during walking.

Pohl MB, Rabbito M, Ferber R - J Foot Ankle Res (2010)

Bottom Line: It was also postulated that the magnitude of the change in rearfoot motion would be associated with standing anatomical rearfoot posture.These data indicate that reduced force output of the tibialis posterior muscle did not alter rearfoot and forefoot motion during gait.The anatomical structure of the rearfoot was not associated with the dependence of muscular activity that an individual requires to maintain normal rearfoot kinematics during gait.

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML - PubMed

Affiliation: Running Injury Clinic, Faculty of Kinesiology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada. mbpohl@ucalgary.ca.

ABSTRACT

Background: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of localised tibialis posterior muscle fatigue on foot kinematics during walking. It was hypothesised that following fatigue, subjects would demonstrate greater forefoot and rearfoot motion during walking. It was also postulated that the magnitude of the change in rearfoot motion would be associated with standing anatomical rearfoot posture.

Methods: Twenty-nine subjects underwent an exercise fatigue protocol aimed at reducing the force output of tibialis posterior. An eight camera motion analysis system was used to evaluate 3D foot kinematics during treadmill walking both pre- and post-fatigue. The anatomical rearfoot angle was measured during standing prior to the fatigue protocol using a goniometer.

Results: Peak rearfoot eversion remained unchanged following the fatigue protocol. Although increases in rearfoot eversion excursion were observed following fatigue, these changes were of a magnitude of questionable clinical significance (<1.0 degrees ). The magnitude of the change in rearfoot eversion due to fatigue was not associated with the anatomical measurement of standing rearfoot angle. No substantial changes in forefoot kinematics were observed following the fatigue protocol.

Conclusions: These data indicate that reduced force output of the tibialis posterior muscle did not alter rearfoot and forefoot motion during gait. The anatomical structure of the rearfoot was not associated with the dependence of muscular activity that an individual requires to maintain normal rearfoot kinematics during gait.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Ensemble mean (SD) kinematic curves for both pre- and post-fatigue of rearfoot and forefoot motion. SD is only shown for the PRE condition to improve clarity of the charts.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2864206&req=5

Figure 3: Ensemble mean (SD) kinematic curves for both pre- and post-fatigue of rearfoot and forefoot motion. SD is only shown for the PRE condition to improve clarity of the charts.

Mentions: Mean ensemble kinematic curves of the rearfoot (relative to the shank) and the forefoot (relative to the rearfoot) are shown in Figure 3. The mean (SD) values for all kinematic variables of interest are presented in Table 1. Following fatiguing exercise of tibialis posterior, there was a significantly greater amount of rearfoot EVE excursion from the pre-fatigue condition (0.7°). There were no significant differences in rearfoot peak EVE or the time to peak EVE following the fatigue protocol.


The role of tibialis posterior fatigue on foot kinematics during walking.

Pohl MB, Rabbito M, Ferber R - J Foot Ankle Res (2010)

Ensemble mean (SD) kinematic curves for both pre- and post-fatigue of rearfoot and forefoot motion. SD is only shown for the PRE condition to improve clarity of the charts.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2864206&req=5

Figure 3: Ensemble mean (SD) kinematic curves for both pre- and post-fatigue of rearfoot and forefoot motion. SD is only shown for the PRE condition to improve clarity of the charts.
Mentions: Mean ensemble kinematic curves of the rearfoot (relative to the shank) and the forefoot (relative to the rearfoot) are shown in Figure 3. The mean (SD) values for all kinematic variables of interest are presented in Table 1. Following fatiguing exercise of tibialis posterior, there was a significantly greater amount of rearfoot EVE excursion from the pre-fatigue condition (0.7°). There were no significant differences in rearfoot peak EVE or the time to peak EVE following the fatigue protocol.

Bottom Line: It was also postulated that the magnitude of the change in rearfoot motion would be associated with standing anatomical rearfoot posture.These data indicate that reduced force output of the tibialis posterior muscle did not alter rearfoot and forefoot motion during gait.The anatomical structure of the rearfoot was not associated with the dependence of muscular activity that an individual requires to maintain normal rearfoot kinematics during gait.

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML - PubMed

Affiliation: Running Injury Clinic, Faculty of Kinesiology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada. mbpohl@ucalgary.ca.

ABSTRACT

Background: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of localised tibialis posterior muscle fatigue on foot kinematics during walking. It was hypothesised that following fatigue, subjects would demonstrate greater forefoot and rearfoot motion during walking. It was also postulated that the magnitude of the change in rearfoot motion would be associated with standing anatomical rearfoot posture.

Methods: Twenty-nine subjects underwent an exercise fatigue protocol aimed at reducing the force output of tibialis posterior. An eight camera motion analysis system was used to evaluate 3D foot kinematics during treadmill walking both pre- and post-fatigue. The anatomical rearfoot angle was measured during standing prior to the fatigue protocol using a goniometer.

Results: Peak rearfoot eversion remained unchanged following the fatigue protocol. Although increases in rearfoot eversion excursion were observed following fatigue, these changes were of a magnitude of questionable clinical significance (<1.0 degrees ). The magnitude of the change in rearfoot eversion due to fatigue was not associated with the anatomical measurement of standing rearfoot angle. No substantial changes in forefoot kinematics were observed following the fatigue protocol.

Conclusions: These data indicate that reduced force output of the tibialis posterior muscle did not alter rearfoot and forefoot motion during gait. The anatomical structure of the rearfoot was not associated with the dependence of muscular activity that an individual requires to maintain normal rearfoot kinematics during gait.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus