Influence of orthotic devices prescribed using pressure data on lower extremity kinematics and pressures beneath the shoe during running

2008 ◽  
Vol 23 (5) ◽  
pp. 593-600 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sharon J. Dixon ◽  
Kate McNally
Keyword(s):  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Orthotic Devices ◽  
Pressure Data

Medial Unloader Braces and Lateral Heel Wedges Do not Alter Gait Biomechanics in Healthy Young Adults

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 354-359 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan S. Goodwin ◽  
Robert A. Creighton ◽  
Brian G. Pietrosimone ◽  
Jeffery T. Spang ◽  
J. Troy Blackburn
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Young Adults ◽  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Frontal Plane ◽  
Heel Strike ◽  
Orthotic Devices ◽  
Healthy Individuals ◽  
Gait Biomechanics ◽  
Orthopedic Injury ◽  
Unloader Brace

Context: Orthotic devices such as medial unloader knee braces and lateral heel wedges may limit cartilage loading following trauma or surgical repair. However, little is known regarding their effects on gait biomechanics in young, healthy individuals who are at risk of cartilage injury during physical activity due to greater athletic exposure compared with older adults. Objective: Determine the effect of medial unloader braces and lateral heel wedges on lower-extremity kinematics and kinetics in healthy, young adults. Design: Cross-sectional crossover design. Setting: Laboratory setting. Patients: Healthy, young adults who were recreationally active (30 min/d for 3 d/wk) between 18 and 35 years of age, who were free from orthopedic injury for at least 6 months, and with no history of lower-extremity orthopedic surgery. Interventions: All subjects completed normal over ground walking with a medial unloader brace at 2 different tension settings and a lateral heel wedge for a total of 4 separate walking conditions. Main Outcome Measures: Frontal plane knee angle at heel strike, peak varus angle, peak internal knee valgus moment, and frontal plane angular impulse were compared across conditions. Results: The medial unloader brace at 50% (−2.04° [3.53°]) and 100% (−1.80° [3.63°]) maximum load placed the knee in a significantly more valgus orientation at heel strike compared with the lateral heel wedge condition (−0.05° [2.85°]). However, this difference has minimal clinical relevance. Neither of the orthotic devices altered knee kinematics or kinetics relative to the control condition. Conclusions: Although effective in older adults and individuals with varus knee alignment, medial unloader braces and lateral heel wedges do not influence gait biomechanics in young, healthy individuals.

145 Positioning of Multiple Burned Joints- It Takes a Team

2021 ◽  
Vol 42 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S96-S96
Author(s):  
Michelle N Dwertman ◽  
Catherine Gallagher ◽  
Michelle Smith
Keyword(s):  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Educational Resources ◽  
Orthotic Devices ◽  
Environment Management ◽  
Successful Execution ◽  
Burn Patient

Abstract Positioning of a burn patient with upper and lower extremity involvement is challenging and maintaining that position requires burn team support. This video displays positional strategies for the burn team to utilize to optimize recovery for the acute burn patient. Interventions strategies will include modifying the patient’s environment, management of orthotic devices and additional educational resources for successful execution of positional goals.

Lower-Extremity Overuse Injury and Use of Foot Orthotic Devices in Women’s Basketball

2006 ◽  
Vol 96 (5) ◽  
pp. 408-412 ◽  
Author(s):  
Walter L. Jenkins ◽  
Susanne G. Raedeke
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Group ◽  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Overuse Injury ◽  
Density Ratio ◽  
Incidence Density ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Orthotic Devices ◽  
Basketball Players ◽  
Injury Rates ◽  
Foot Orthotic

One hundred thirty-two female basketball players were observed for lower-extremity overuse injury between 1993 and 2004. Athletes studied between 1993 and 1996 did not receive foot orthotic devices and composed the control group. The treatment group comprised athletes studied between 1996 and 2004. Athletes in the treatment group were given a foot orthotic device before participation in basketball. Data analysis included lower-extremity overuse injury rates and the effect of foot orthotic devices on lower-extremity overuse injury rates by means of an incidence density ratio. The control group had a lower-extremity overuse injury rate of 5.37 per 1,000 exposures, and the treatment group had a rate of 6.44 per 1,000 exposures. The incidence density ratio was not significant (P = .44). This study rejects the concept that foot orthotic devices may assist in prevention of lower-extremity overuse injury in female basketball players. (J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 96(5): 408–412, 2006)

Foot orthotic devices to modify selected aspects of lower extremity mechanics

1979 ◽  
Vol 7 (6) ◽  
pp. 338-342 ◽  
Author(s):  
B.T. Bates ◽  
L.R. Osternig ◽  
B. Mason ◽  
L.S. James
Keyword(s):  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Orthotic Devices ◽  
Foot Orthotic

Forces Produced by Ground Contact Rotational Orthotic Devices

1974 ◽  
Vol 96 (2) ◽  
pp. 127-130
Author(s):  
C. A. Rodenberger
Keyword(s):  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Adult Male ◽  
Applied Load ◽  
The Other ◽  
Normal Adult ◽  
Orthotic Devices ◽  
Ground Contact ◽  
Circular Array ◽  
Normal Walking ◽  
Femoral Torsion

The correction of lower extremity rotational deformities, such as tibial and femoral torsion, requires the application of derotational forces. One method of applying such rotational forces during ambulation is through the use of ground contact rotational orthotic devices. Two devices were tested. One device uses parallel rows of slanted rubber ribs and the other has slanted rubber ribs located in a circular array to produce rotational forces when the device strikes the ground during normal walking. It was found that the parallel rowed rib produced a rotation of 5.5 deg during walking and when rotation was prevented, torsional force produced by the device was approximately 20 in-lb. The circular array of ribs produced a complete rotation of 18 deg. When rotation was prevented, the heel produced 21.5 in-lb of torsion. The possible resisting torsion of a normal adult male was determined to be 11 in-lb at an 80 lb applied weight. Therefore it is concluded that the ground contact rotational devices will either provide rotation to the extent of the applied load or will apply torsional force greater than that encountered by normal leg structure.

scholarly journals A Comparative Biomechanical Analysis during Planned and Unplanned Gait Termination in Individuals with Different Arch Stiffnesses

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 1871
Author(s):  
Xuanzhen Cen ◽  
Zhenghui Lu ◽  
Julien S. Baker ◽  
Bíró István ◽  
Yaodong Gu
Keyword(s):  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Lower Limb ◽  
Plantar Pressure ◽  
Sagittal Plane ◽  
Biomechanical Analysis ◽  
Stiffness Index ◽  
Maximum Pressure ◽  
Pressure Data ◽  
Kinetic Chain ◽  
Gait Termination

Although values of arch stiffness index (ASI) have been used to evaluate arch structure and injury susceptibility, investigations are limited regarding the influence of ASI on biomechanical characteristics during gait termination, which involves a challenging balance transition from walking to standing. This study aimed to explore plantar pressure distribution and lower extremity joint kinematic differences between individuals with both a stiff and flexible arch (SA and FA, respectively) during planned and unplanned gait termination (PGT and UGT, respectively). Following the calculation of ASI, sixty-five asymptomatic male subjects were classified and participated in two types of gait termination tests to acquire kinematic and plantar pressure data. Parameters were compared between SA and FA using a two-way ANOVA during PGT and UGT, respectively. UGT was found to have a larger range of motion on the hip joint in the sagittal plane and the knee joint in the transverse plane when compared with PGT. The differences in the kinematic characteristics of the lower limb joints caused by the difference in arch stiffness are mainly concentrated in the ankle and metatarsophalangeal joints. Plantar pressure data, represented by the maximum pressure, showed significant differences in the forefoot and rearfoot areas. These results suggest that ASI could change freedom of motion of the lower limb joints, and UGT tends to conduct a compensatory adjustment for the lower extremity kinetic chain. An understanding of the biomechanical characteristics of arch structures may provide additional insights into foot function and injury prediction during gait termination.

Combining Values

2002 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-4, 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher R. Brigham
Keyword(s):  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Evaluation Method ◽  
Proximal Phalanx ◽  
Common Error ◽  
The Third ◽  
Whole Person ◽  
Impairment Ratings ◽  
Upper Extremity Impairment ◽  
The Individual

Abstract To account for the effects of multiple impairments, evaluating physicians must provide a summary value that combines multiple impairments so the whole person impairment is equal to or less than the sum of all the individual impairment values. A common error is to add values that should be combined and typically results in an inflated rating. The Combined Values Chart in the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, Fifth Edition, includes instructions that guide physicians about combining impairment ratings. For example, impairment values within a region generally are combined and converted to a whole person permanent impairment before combination with the results from other regions (exceptions include certain impairments of the spine and extremities). When they combine three or more values, physicians should select and combine the two lowest values; this value is combined with the third value to yield the total value. Upper extremity impairment ratings are combined based on the principle that a second and each succeeding impairment applies not to the whole unit (eg, whole finger) but only to the part that remains (eg, proximal phalanx). Physicians who combine lower extremity impairments usually use only one evaluation method, but, if more than one method is used, the physician should use the Combined Values Chart.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document