Advertisement
Mayo Clinic Proceedings Home

Effect of Corrective Rearfoot Orthotic Devices on Ground Reaction Forces During Ambulation

  • Author Footnotes
    1 Current address: Spaulding Neighborhood Rehabilitation Center at Copley, Boston, Massachusetts.
    Clay D. Miller
    Footnotes
    1 Current address: Spaulding Neighborhood Rehabilitation Center at Copley, Boston, Massachusetts.
    Affiliations
    Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, Minnesota
    Search for articles by this author
  • Edward R. Laskowski
    Correspondence
    Address reprint requests Dr. E. R. Laskowski, Sports Medicine Center, Mayo Clinic Rochester, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN 55905
    Affiliations
    Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, Minnesota

    Sports Medicine Center, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, Minnesota
    Search for articles by this author
  • Vera J. Suman
    Affiliations
    Section of Biostatistics, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, Minnesota
    Search for articles by this author
  • Author Footnotes
    1 Current address: Spaulding Neighborhood Rehabilitation Center at Copley, Boston, Massachusetts.

      Objective

      To determine the quantitative effects of a corrective rearfoot orthotic device on the vertical, anteroposterior, and mediolateral ground reaction forces (GRFs) during ambulation.

      Design

      We conducted a prospective, randomized, single-blinded study of 25 subjects during ambulation with and without a rearfoot orthotic device.

      Material and Methods

      Thirteen men and 12 women were enrolled in the study; the inclusion criteria included asymptomatic pes planus (5 to 10 degrees of calcaneal eversion). Each subject walked across a standard force plate in 10 trials with and 10 trials without an orthotic device. The force plate was used to quantify the effect of a semirigid functional rearfoot orthotic device on GRFs and the center of pressure versus a standard shoe with no device. The observer was blinded, trials were completed in random order, and the paired t test was used for statistical analysis.

      Results

      No evidence suggested the presence of a significant difference in mediolateral GRFs and in the center of pressure exerted at 10%, 20%, 50%, and 80% of stance phase with and without the orthotic device. Significant reductions were noted in vertical GRFs per newton of body weight exerted at 10% (P = 0.0009) and 20% % (P = 0.0383) of stance phase and in anteroposterior GRFs exerted at 10% (P = 0.0009) and 50% (P = 0.0033) of stance phase when ambulation was compared with and without the orthotic device.

      Conclusion

      These results indicate that a rearfoot orthotic device reduces vertical and anteroposterior GRFs in the early stages of the stance phase during the gait cycle. We found no evidence to suggest a significant difference at any of the percent stance phases when comparisons were made of mediolateral GRFs exerted with and without the orthotic device. These data are contrary to current hypotheses about use of orthotic devices, and further studies would be helpful to reproduce these findings and to determine whether these changes are related to clinical improvement in symptomatic pes planus.
      GRFs (ground reaction forces), N (bwt) (newton of body weight)
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Mayo Clinic Proceedings
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • James SL
        • Bates BT
        • Ostemig LR
        Injuries to runners.
        Am J Sports Med. 1978; 6: 40-50
        • Drez D
        Running footwear: examination of the training shoe, the foot, and functional orthotic devices.
        Am J Sports Med. 1980; 8: 140-141
        • D'Ambrosia RD
        • Douglas R
        Orthotics.
        in: D'Ambrosia RD Dres Jr, D Prevention and Treatment of Running Injuries. CB Slack,, Thorofare (NJ)1982: 155-164
        • Bates BT
        • Ostemig LR
        • Mason B
        • James SL
        Foot orthotic devices to modify selected aspects of lower extremity mechanics.
        Am J Sports Med. 1979; 7: 338-342
      1. Cavanagh PR et al., Cited by Mann

        • Mann RA
        Biomechanics of running.

        • Smith LS
        • Clarke TE
        • Hamill CL
        • Santopietro F
        The effects of soft and semi-rigid orthoses upon rearfoot movement in running.
        J Am Podiatry Med Assoc. 1986; 76: 227-233
        • Taunton JE
        • Clement DB
        • Smart GW
        • Wiley JP
        • McNicol KL
        A triplanar electrogoniometer investigation of running mechanics in runners with compensatory overpronation.
        Can J Appl Sports Sci. 1985; 10: 104-115
        • Burkett LN
        • Kohrt WM
        • Buchbinder R
        Effects of shoes and foot orthotics on V02 and selected frontal plane knee kinematics.
        Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1985; 17: 158-163
        • Cavanagh PR
        • Lafortune MA
        Ground reaction forces in distance running.
        J Biomech. 1980; 13: 397-406
        • Chao EY
        • Laughman RK
        • Schneider E
        • Stauffer RN
        Normative data of knee joint motion and ground reaction forces in adult level walking.
        J Biomech. 1983; 16: 219-233
        • Katoh Y
        • Chao EY
        • Laughman RK
        • Schneider E
        • Morrey BF
        Biomechanical analysis of foot function during gait and clinical applications.
        Clin Orthop. 1983 Jul-Aug; 177: 23-33
        • Mann RA
        Biomechanics of running.
        in: Mack RP American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Symposium on the Foot and Leg in Running Sports. Mosby,, St. Louis1982: 1-29
        • Root ML
        • Orien WP
        • Weed JH
        Normal and Abnormal Function of the Foot: Clinical Biomechanics. Clinical Biomechanics Corporation,, Los Angeles1977
      2. Donatelli R The Biomechanics of the Foot and Ankle. FA Davis,, Philadelphia1990