Volume 23, Issue 3 (2020)
mjms 2020, 23(3): 143-148 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Jahani M, Jalalvand A, Hosseini Y. Ground Reaction Forces during Running in Flatfoot Population Compared with Healthy Controls. mjms 2020; 23 (3) :143-148
URL: http://mjms.modares.ac.ir/article-30-39996-en.html
URL: http://mjms.modares.ac.ir/article-30-39996-en.html
1- Department of Physical Education and Sport Science, Hamedan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Hamdan, Iran
2- Department of Physical Education and Sport Science, Hamedan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Hamdan, Iran ,jalalvand_ali@yahoo.com
3- Department of Physical Education and Sport Science, Faculty of Human Science, University of Malayer, Hamedan, Iran
2- Department of Physical Education and Sport Science, Hamedan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Hamdan, Iran ,
3- Department of Physical Education and Sport Science, Faculty of Human Science, University of Malayer, Hamedan, Iran
Abstract: (2812 Views)
Aims: Flatfoot is one of the common complications in individuals. The study of ground reaction forces (GRF) in different activities has clinical importance. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to analyze the GRF during running in individuals with flatfoot compared with healthy subjects.
Materials & Methods: 12 healthy men and 12 male patients with flatfoot participated in this study. By two force plates (1000Hz), GFR components during the stance phase of running were measured. Independent t-test was used to investigate differences between groups. The significance level was p≤0.05.
Findings: The results showed that there is a significant difference between the two groups in ground reaction force of Fx1 (p= 0.001), Fx3 (p= 0.03), Fy1 (p= 0.001), Fz1 (p= 0.03), Fz3 (p= 0.01), and the mean difference between these components was lower in the group of flatfeet compared to the healthy group.
Conclusion: Reducing some of the surface reaction force components in flatfoot individuals may be affected by the range of motion and torque of different anti-gravity muscles or adopting a strategy of stiffening the knee in these individuals.
Materials & Methods: 12 healthy men and 12 male patients with flatfoot participated in this study. By two force plates (1000Hz), GFR components during the stance phase of running were measured. Independent t-test was used to investigate differences between groups. The significance level was p≤0.05.
Findings: The results showed that there is a significant difference between the two groups in ground reaction force of Fx1 (p= 0.001), Fx3 (p= 0.03), Fy1 (p= 0.001), Fz1 (p= 0.03), Fz3 (p= 0.01), and the mean difference between these components was lower in the group of flatfeet compared to the healthy group.
Conclusion: Reducing some of the surface reaction force components in flatfoot individuals may be affected by the range of motion and torque of different anti-gravity muscles or adopting a strategy of stiffening the knee in these individuals.
Article Type: Original Research |
Subject:
Physiothraepy
Received: 2020/01/19 | Accepted: 2020/08/12
Received: 2020/01/19 | Accepted: 2020/08/12
References
1. Chen JP, Chung MJ, Wang MJ. Flatfoot prevalence and foot dimensions of 5-to 13-year-old children in Taiwan. Foot Ankle Int. 2009;30(4):326-32. [Link] [DOI:10.3113/FAI.2009.0326]
2. Murley GS, Menz HB, Landorf KB. Foot posture influences the electromyographic activity of selected lower limb muscles during gait. J Foot Ankle Res. 2009;2(1):35. [Link] [DOI:10.1186/1757-1146-2-35]
3. Keenan MA, Peabody TD, Gronley JK, Perry J. Valgus deformities of the feet and characteristics of gait in patients who have rheumatoid arthritis. J Bone Jt Surg Am Vol. 1991;73(2):237-47. [Link] [DOI:10.2106/00004623-199173020-00012]
4. Neumann DA. Kinesiology of the musculoskeletal system: Foundations for rehabititaion. 2nd Edition. Maryland Heights: Mosby; 2010. [Link]
5. Jacobs B. Toe walking, flat feet and bow legs, in-toeing and out-toeing. Paediatr Child Health. 2010;20(5):221-4. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.paed.2010.03.001]
6. Hunt AE, Smith RM. Mechanics and control of the flat versus normal foot during the stance phase of walking. Clin Biomech. 2004;19(4):391-7. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2003.12.010]
7. Williams DS, McClay IS, Hamill J, Buchanan TS. Lower extremity kinematic and kinetic differences in runners with high and low arches. J Appl Biomech. 2001;17(2):153-63. [Link] [DOI:10.1123/jab.17.2.153]
8. Simkin A, Leichter I, Giladi M, Stein M, Milgrom C. Combined effect of foot arch structure and an orthotic device on stress fractures. Foot Ankle. 1989;10(1):25-9. [Link] [DOI:10.1177/107110078901000105]
9. Ortega DR, Bíes EC, De La Rosa FJ. Analysis of the vertical ground reaction forces and temporal factors in the landing phase of a countermovement jump. J Sports Sci Med. 2010;9(2):282-7. [Link]
10. Jenkins J, Ellis C. Using ground reaction forces from gait analysis: Body mass as a weak biometric. International Conference On Pervasive Computing, 2007 May 13-16, Toronto, ON, Canada. Berlin: Springer; 2007. [Link]
11. Creaby MW, May K, Bennell KL. Insole effects on impact loading during walking. Ergonomics. 2011;54(7):665-71. [Link] [DOI:10.1080/00140139.2011.592600]
12. Mantashloo Z, Sadeghi H, Khaleghi Tazji M. The effect of foot pronation on postural control of body and electrical activity of selected ankle muscles during V-Cut motion. J Sport Biomech. 2017;2(4):61-9. [Persian] [Link]
13. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39(2):175-91. [Link] [DOI:10.3758/BF03193146]
14. Scott G, Menz HB, Newcombe L. Age-related differences in foot structure and function. Gait Posture. 2007;26(1):68-75. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.gaitpost.2006.07.009]
15. Winter DA. Biomechanics and motor control of human movement. 4th Edition. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons; 2009. [Link] [DOI:10.1002/9780470549148]
16. Martin PE, Marsh AP. Step length and frequency effects on ground reaction forces during walking. J Biomech. 1992;25(10):1237-9. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/0021-9290(92)90081-B]
17. Eslami M, Begon M, Hinse S, Sadeghi H, Popov P, Allard P. Effect of foot orthoses on magnitude and timing of rearfoot and tibial motions, ground reaction force and knee moment during running. J Sci Med Sport. 2009;12(6):679-84. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.jsams.2008.05.001]
18. Morley JB, Decker LM, Dierks T, Blanke D, French JA, Stergiou N. Effects of varying amounts of pronation on the mediolateral ground reaction forces during barefoot versus shod running. J Appl Biomech. 2010;26(2):205-14. [Link] [DOI:10.1123/jab.26.2.205]
19. Levangie PK, Norkin CC. Joint structure and function: A comprehensive analysis. Philadelphia: F.A. Davis; 2011. [Link]
20. Mizrahi J, Verbitsky O, Isakov E, Daily D. Effect of fatigue on leg kinematics and impact acceleration in long distance running. Hum Mov Sci. 2000;19(2):139-51. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/S0167-9457(00)00013-0]
21. Kader D, Saxena A, Movin T, Maffulli N. Achilles tendinopathy: Some aspects of basic science and clinical management. Br J Sports Med. 2002;36(4):239-49. [Link] [DOI:10.1136/bjsm.36.4.239]
22. Hesar NG, Van Ginckel A, Cools A, Peersman W, Roosen P, De Clercq D, et al. A prospective study on gait-related intrinsic risk factors for lower leg overuse injuries. Br J Sports Med. 2009;43(13):1057-61. [Link] [DOI:10.1136/bjsm.2008.055723]
23. Nachbauer WE, Nigg BM. Effects of arch height of the foot on ground reaction forces in running. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1992;24(11):1264-9. [Link] [DOI:10.1249/00005768-199211000-00011]
24. Tanaka C, Farah EA. Anatomia funcional das cadeias musculares. Fisioterapia e Pesquisa. 1997;4(1):39-40. [Link]
25. Sadeghi H, Razi MJ, Ebrahimi Takamejani E, Shariatzade M. Effect of lower limb muscle fatigue on selected kinematics, kinetics, and muscle activity of the gait in active young men. Sci J Rehabil Med. 2018;7(1):225-35. [Persian] [Link]
26. Chang JS, Kwon YH, Kim CS, Ahn SH, Park SH. Differences of ground reaction forces and kinematics of lower extremity according to landing height between flat and normal feet. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2012;25(1):21-6. [Link] [DOI:10.3233/BMR-2012-0306]
27. Boozari S, Jamshidi AA, Sanjari MA, Jafari H. Effect of functional fatigue on vertical ground-reaction force in individuals with flat feet. J Sport Rehabil. 2013;22(3):177-83. [Link] [DOI:10.1123/jsr.22.3.177]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |