Nester, CJ 2009, 'Lessons from dynamic cadaver and invasive bone pin studies: do we know how the foot really moves during gait?' , Journal of Foot and Ankle Research, 2 (1) , p. 18.
- Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
Download (1MB) | Preview
Background: This paper provides a summary of a Keynote lecture delivered at the 2009 Australasian Podiatry Conference. The aim of the paper is to review recent research that has adopted dynamic cadaver and invasive kinematics research approaches to better understand foot and ankle kinematics during gait. It is not intended to systematically cover all literature related to foot and ankle kinematics (such as research using surface mounted markers). Since the paper is based on a keynote presentation its focuses on the authors own experiences and work in the main, drawing on the work of others where appropriate Methods: Two approaches to the problem of accessing and measuring the kinematics of individual anatomical structures in the foot have been taken, (i) static and dynamic cadaver models, and (ii) invasive in-vivo research. Cadaver models offer the advantage that there is complete access to all the tissues of the foot, but the cadaver must be manipulated and loaded in a manner which replicates how the foot would have performed when in-vivo. The key value of invasive in-vivo foot kinematics research is the validity of the description of foot kinematics, but the key difficulty is how generalisable this data is to the wider population. Results: Through these techniques a great deal has been learnt. We better understand the valuable contribution mid and forefoot joints make to foot biomechanics, and how the ankle and subtalar joints can have almost comparable roles. Variation between people in foot kinematics is high and normal. This includes variation in how specific joints move and how combinations of joints move. The foot continues to demonstrate its flexibility in enabling us to get from A to B via a large number of different kinematic solutions. Conclusion: Rather than continue to apply a poorly founded model of foot type whose basis is to make all feet meet criteria for the mechanical 'ideal' or 'normal' foot, we should embrace variation between feet and identify it as an opportunity to develop patient-specific clinical models of foot function.
|Themes:||Health and Wellbeing|
|Schools:||Schools > School of Health Sciences > Centre for Health Sciences Research
Schools > School of Health Sciences
|Journal or Publication Title:||Journal of Foot and Ankle Research|
|Publisher:||Journal of Foot and Ankle Research|
|Depositing User:||RH Shuttleworth|
|Date Deposited:||12 May 2011 09:59|
|Last Modified:||30 Nov 2015 23:47|
Actions (login required)
|Edit record (repository staff only)|