Arch Height Index Measurement System

2008 ◽  
Vol 98 (2) ◽  
pp. 102-106 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert J. Butler ◽  
Howard Hillstrom ◽  
Jinsup Song ◽  
Christine J. Richards ◽  
Irene S. Davis
Keyword(s):  
Measurement System ◽  
Interrater Reliability ◽  
Measurement Procedure ◽  
Normative Values ◽  
Structural Factors ◽  
Arch Height ◽  
Lower Extremity Injuries ◽  
Index Measurement ◽  
Recreational Runners ◽  
Extremity Injuries

Background: The purposes of this study were 1) to determine the intrarater and interrater reliability of the arch height index measurement system device, 2) to establish population normative values for the arch height index in recreational runners, and 3) to compare arch height index values between the right and left feet and between genders. Methods: Eleven subjects were used to establish intrarater and interrater reliability of the arch height index measurement system. This system was then used to measure the arch height index of 100 recreational runners. Results: Measurements taken with the arch height index measurement system device exhibited high intrarater and interrater reliability. The mean ± SD arch height index of the recreational runners was 0.340 ± 0.030. Men had larger feet than women, but the arch height index between genders was similar. Conclusions: The arch height index measurement system device is reliable to use between testers while simplifying the measurement procedure for recording the arch height index. The arch height index may be helpful in identifying potential structural factors that predispose individuals to lower-extremity injuries. (J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 98(2): 102–106, 2008)

Arch Height Index Normative Values of College-Aged Women Using the Arch Height Index Measurement System

2013 ◽  
Vol 103 (3) ◽  
pp. 213-217 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wendi H. Weimar ◽  
Justin F. Shroyer
Keyword(s):  
Measurement System ◽  
Metatarsophalangeal Joint ◽  
Standing Position ◽  
Normative Values ◽  
Arch Height ◽  
First Metatarsophalangeal Joint ◽  
Index Measurement ◽  
Foot Arch ◽  
Left And Right ◽  
The Mean

Background: The arch height index measurement system (AHIMS) device has been found to be a reliable and valid instrument for measuring the arch height index (AHI) of the feet of individuals; however, normative data for the AHI are lacking for various populations. Therefore, the purposes of this study were to establish population normative AHI values for college-aged females and to compare the observed AHI data across right and left feet. Methods: Seventy-nine college-aged females served as study participants, and both feet were measured using the AHIMS in the seated and standing positions. The AHI was calculated as the ratio of the dorsum height of the foot at half the total foot length to the length of the foot from the heel to the base of the first metatarsophalangeal joint. Results: The mean ± SD AHI values for the left and right feet in the seated position were 0.355 ± 0.031 and 0.369 ± 0.034, respectively. The mean ± SD AHI values for the left and right feet in the standing position were 0.338 ± 0.031 and 0.343 ± 0.033, respectively. There were significant differences observed between the left and right feet for the seated (P < .001) and standing (P = .003) positions. Conclusions: Normative values were established for college-aged females for the AHI using the AHIMS. Differences were noted between the right and left feet of the participants sampled. Although normative values were obtained, we caution against using these values to classify foot arch types based solely on a sample of the population studied. (J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 103(3): 213–217, 2013)

scholarly journals Reliability of the Landing Error Scoring System-Real Time, a Clinical Assessment Tool of Jump-Landing Biomechanics

2011 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 145-156 ◽  
Author(s):  
Darin A. Padua ◽  
Michelle C. Boling ◽  
Lindsay J. DiStefano ◽  
James A. Onate ◽  
Anthony I. Beutler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Real Time ◽  
Clinical Assessment ◽  
Scoring System ◽  
Interrater Reliability ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Lower Extremity Injuries ◽  
Jump Landing ◽  
Extremity Injuries

Context:There is a need for reliable clinical assessment tools that can be used to identify individuals who may be at risk for injury. The Landing Error Scoring System (LESS) is a reliable and valid clinical assessment tool that was developed to identify individuals at risk for lower extremity injuries. One limitation of this tool is that it cannot be assessed in real time and requires the use of video cameras.Objective:To determine the interrater reliability of a real-time version of the LESS, the LESS-RT.Design:Reliability study.Setting:Controlled research laboratory.Participants:43 healthy volunteers (24 women, 19 men) between the ages of 18 and 23.Intervention:The LESS-RT evaluates 10 jump-landing characteristics that may predispose an individual to lower extremity injuries. Two sets of raters used the LESS-RT to evaluate participants as they performed 4 trials of a jump-landing task.Main Outcome Measures:Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC2,1) values for the final composite score of the LESS-RT were calculated to assess interrater reliability of the LESS-RT.Results:Interrater reliability (ICC2,1) for the LESS-RT ranged from .72 to .81 with standard error of measurements ranging from .69 to .79.Conclusions:The LESS-RT is a quick, easy, and reliable clinical assessment tool that may be used by clinicians to identify individuals who may be at risk for lower extremity injuries.

Caliper Method Versus Digital Photogrammetry for Assessing Arch Height Index in Pregnant Women

2016 ◽  
Vol 106 (6) ◽  
pp. 406-410
Author(s):  
Kathryn D. Harrison ◽  
Jean L. McCrory
Keyword(s):  
Pregnant Women ◽  
Measurement System ◽  
Mixed Model ◽  
Intraclass Correlation ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Clinical Use ◽  
Digital Photogrammetry ◽  
Arch Height ◽  
Index Measurement ◽  
Foot Arch

Background: Foot anthropometry may be altered during pregnancy. Pregnant women often report lower-extremity pain that may be related to these alterations. The Arch Height Index Measurement System is a common method of foot arch assessment; however, the required calipers are costly and are not widely available. Thus, we compared the reliability of a digital photogrammetry method of arch height index (AHI) assessment with that of the Arch Height Index Measurement System. Methods: Ten pregnant women (mean ± SD: age, 29 ± 4 years; height, 166.9 ± 6.8 cm; weight, 63.3 ± 8.8 kg) in their second trimester were recruited to participate, along with a control group of 10 nulliparous weight-matched women (mean ± SD: age, 22 ± 2 years; height, 164.6 ± 4.8 cm; weight, 61.5 ± 8.1 kg). During the second and third trimesters, and once postpartum, AHI was assessed using calipers and using digital photogrammetry. Mixed model absolute agreement type intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to determine correlation between the two methods for sitting and standing AHI. Results: The ICC results for sitting AHI only (0.819–0.968) were reasonable for clinical measures; ICC values for standing AHI (0.674–0.789) did not reach values deemed reasonable for clinical use. Conclusions: Caliper and digital photogrammetry methods of AHI assessment are correlated in pregnant women; however, for standing AHI, the correlation is not sufficient for clinical use. Photogrammetry may still be appropriate for clinical use, as long as values from this method are not substituted directly for results obtained from calipers.

The Arch-Height-Index Measurement System: A New Method of Foot Classification

2006 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 56-57 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carl G. Mattacola ◽  
Jennifer S. Howard ◽  
Dustin Briggs
Keyword(s):  
Measurement System ◽  
New Method ◽  
Arch Height ◽  
System A ◽  
Index Measurement

scholarly journals Rearfoot, Midfoot, and Forefoot Motion in Naturally Forefoot and Rearfoot Strike Runners during Treadmill Running

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (21) ◽  
pp. 7811
Author(s):  
Alessandra B. Matias ◽  
Paolo Caravaggi ◽  
Ulisses T. Taddei ◽  
Alberto Leardini ◽  
Isabel C. N. Sacco
Keyword(s):  
Three Dimensional ◽  
Slow Motion ◽  
Treadmill Running ◽  
Long Distance ◽  
Foot Kinematics ◽  
Lower Extremity Injuries ◽  
Metatarsal Bones ◽  
Foot Model ◽  
Recreational Runners ◽  
Extremity Injuries

Different location and incidence of lower extremity injuries have been reported in rearfoot strike (RFS) and forefoot strike (FFS) recreational runners. These might be related to functional differences between the two footstrike patterns affecting foot kinematics and thus the incidence of running injuries. The aim of this study was to investigate and compare the kinematic patterns of foot joints between naturally RFS and FFS runners. A validated multi-segment foot model was used to measure 24 foot kinematic variables in long-distance recreational runners while running on a treadmill. These variables included the three-dimensional relative motion between rearfoot, midfoot, and forefoot segments. The footstrike pattern was identified using kinematic data and slow-motion videos. Functional analysis of variance was used to compare the time series of these variables between RFS (n = 49) and FFS (n = 25) runners. In FFS runners, the metatarsal bones were less tilted with respect to the ground, and the metatarsus was less adducted with respect to the calcaneus during stance. In early stance, the calcaneus was more dorsiflexed with respect to the shank and returned to a more plantarflexed position at push-off. FFS runners showed a more adducted calcaneus with respect to the shank and a less inverted midfoot to the calcaneus. The present study has showed that the footstrike angle characterizes foot kinematics in running. These data may help shed more light on the relationship between foot function and running-related injuries.

scholarly journals Arch Height Index, Arch Rigidity Index and Arch Stiffness Values in a Symptomatic Population

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Megan Balsdon ◽  
Michaela E Khan ◽  
Dillon Richards ◽  
Colin E Dombroski
Keyword(s):  
Hallux Valgus ◽  
Measurement System ◽  
Plantar Fasciitis ◽  
Coefficient Of Determination ◽  
Arch Height ◽  
Normative Sample ◽  
Weak Relationship ◽  
Index Measurement ◽  
Arch Structure ◽  
Rigidity Index

BACKGROUND: Normative studies on the Arch Height Index (AHI), Arch Rigidity Index (ARI), and arch stiffness have primarily focused on healthy populations, with little consideration of pathology. The purpose of this study was to create a normative sample of the aforementioned measurements in a pathological sample and to identify relationships between arch structure measurements and pathology. METHODS: AHI was obtained bilaterally at 10% and 90% weightbearing conditions using the Arch Height Index Measurement System (AHIMS). ARI and arch stiffness were calculated using AHI measurements. Dependent t-tests compared right and left, dominant and non-dominant, and injured and non-injured limbs. Measurements of the dominant foot were compared between sexes using independent t-tests. Relationships between arch stiffness and age, sex, and AHI were examined using the coefficient of determination (R2). One-way ANOVAs were used to determine differences between arch structure measurements and number of pathologies or BMI. RESULTS: A total of 110 participants reported either one (n=55), two (n=38), or three or more (n=17) pathologies. Plantar fasciitis (n=31) and hallux valgus (n=28) were the most commonly reported primary concerns. AHI, ARI, and arch stiffness did not differ between limbs for any comparisons, nor between sexes. Between subgroups of BMI and number of pathologies, no differences exist in AHI or ARI; however, BMI was found to have an impact on AHI (10%WB) and arch stiffness (p<.05). Arch stiffness showed a weak relationship to AHI, where a higher AHI was associated with a stiffer arch (R2=0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Normative AHI, ARI and arch stiffness values were established in a pathological sample with a large incidence of plantar fasciitis and hallux valgus. Findings suggest relationships between arch stiffness and both BMI and arch height; however, few trends were noted in AHI and ARI. Determining relationships between arch structure and pathology is helpful for both clinicians and researchers.

scholarly journals Concussion in National Football League Athletes Is Not Associated With Increased Risk of Acute, Noncontact Lower Extremity Musculoskeletal Injury

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 232596712110034
Author(s):  
Toufic R. Jildeh ◽  
Fabien Meta ◽  
Jacob Young ◽  
Brendan Page ◽  
Kelechi R. Okoroha
Keyword(s):  
Lower Extremity ◽  
National Football League ◽  
Field Performance ◽  
Return To Play ◽  
Lower Extremity Injury ◽  
Extremity Injury ◽  
Lower Extremity Injuries ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Extremity Injuries ◽  
And Control

Background: Impaired neuromuscular function after concussion has recently been linked to increased risk of lower extremity injuries in athletes. Purpose: To determine if National Football League (NFL) athletes have an increased risk of sustaining an acute, noncontact lower extremity injury in the 90-day period after return to play (RTP) and whether on-field performance differs pre- and postconcussion. Study Design: Cohort study, Level of evidence, 3. Methods: NFL concussions in offensive players from the 2012-2013 to the 2016-2017 seasons were studied. Age, position, injury location/type, RTP, and athlete factors were noted. A 90-day RTP postconcussive period was analyzed for lower extremity injuries. Concussion and injury data were obtained from publicly available sources. Nonconcussed, offensive skill position NFL athletes from the same period were used as a control cohort, with the 2014 season as the reference season. Power rating performance metrics were calculated for ±1, ±2, and ±3 seasons pre- and postconcussion. Conditional logistic regression was used to determine associations between concussion and lower extremity injury as well as the relationship of concussions to on-field performance. Results: In total, 116 concussions were recorded in 108 NFL athletes during the study period. There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of an acute, noncontact lower extremity injury between concussed and control athletes (8.5% vs 12.8%; P = .143), which correlates with an odds ratio of 0.573 (95% CI, 0.270-1.217). Days (66.4 ± 81.9 days vs 45.1 ± 69.2 days; P = .423) and games missed (3.67 ± 3.0 vs 2.9 ± 2.7 games; P = .470) were similar in concussed athletes and control athletes after a lower extremity injury. No significant changes in power ratings were noted in concussed athletes in the acute period (±1 season to injury) when comparing pre- and postconcussion. Conclusion: Concussed, NFL offensive athletes did not demonstrate increased odds of acute, noncontact, lower extremity injury in a 90-day RTP period when compared with nonconcussed controls. Immediate on-field performance of skill position players did not appear to be affected by concussion.

scholarly journals EFFECTIVENESS OF PRE-SEASON PHYSICAL PERFORMANCE TESTS IN IDENTIFYING IN-SEASON LOWER EXTREMITY INJURIES IN ADOLESCENT GYMNASTS

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (7_suppl3) ◽  
pp. 2325967121S0014
Author(s):  
Danielle A Farzanegan ◽  
Emily Francione ◽  
Nicole Melfi
Keyword(s):  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Physical Performance ◽  
Performance Tests ◽  
Kinetic Chain ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Balance Test ◽  
Lower Extremity Injuries ◽  
Common Location ◽  
Acute Injuries ◽  
Extremity Injuries

Background: Artistic competitive gymnastics results in a wide, unique spectrum of injuries. Due to the high number of injuries and the current lack of research related to pre-competitive testing in adolescent gymnasts, it is crucial to find a method to predict the likelihood of an athlete sustaining an in-season injury. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to 1) describe the frequency and type of pre-season and in-season injuries, 2) determine if there were differences in physical performance tests between those who had a lower extremity (LE) injury in-season and those who did not, and 3) determine if there were differences in age, level, sex, BMI, sport modifications, previous injury, and current injury between those who had a LE injury and those who didn’t. Methods: Thirty-seven adolescent gymnasts (average age: 12.81 years) were included with levels ranging from 5 (novice) to 10 (elite). Participants (15 males and 22 females) were surveyed for previous and current injury. The athletes completed a performance battery before the competition season including: Lower Quarter Y-Balance Test (LQYBT), Closed Kinetic Chain dorsiflexion (CKCDF), single hop (SH), triple hop (TH), and the Functional Movement Screen (FMS). Follow-up data was collected at the end of the competitive season for comparison. The data was analyzed using descriptive methods and comparative analyses including chi-square and independent t-tests with an alpha level set at .05. Results: Sixty-five percent reported an injury in the last year and seventy-eight percent reported pre-season injuries at testing day. The most common location for pre-season injury was the ankle/foot (24% and 31% respectively). There were no differences between injured and non-injured athletes when comparing asymmetries in CKCDF, LQYBT posteromedial or posterolateral reach, hop testing, or FMS. The LQYBT-anterior scores were significantly different at p=.049 between the injured versus uninjured groups, with 91% of the in-season injury group having a difference <4cm. Similarly, the LQYBT-composite score using a cut-off of 95% was significant at p=.043 with those >95% category being more likely to get injured. There were no significant differences in demographic information comparing injury occurrence. Conclusion: The tested physical performance battery may be useful in tracking gymnasts over time, but may not be beneficial in forecasting injuries in a sport with high percentages of acute injuries. The collected injury volume may not be reflective of a standard season as COVID-19 decreased the number of competitions. Additional research to identify athletes at risk for injury requires further investigation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document