Orthoses have been designed that claim to both reduce shock and control rearfoot motion. It was hypothesized that the dual-purpose soft orthosis would reduce shock and control rearfoot motion greater than a no-orthotic condition. Three-dimensional kinematic and kinetic data were collected along with tibial acceleration while subjects ran in no-orthotic, the dual-purpose orthotic, and a rigid orthotic condition. Variables of interest were eversion excursion, peak eversion, eversion velocity, peak positive acceleration, loading rate, and leg stiffness. None of the evaluated variables were significantly different (p = .05) between the three conditions. These data suggest that shock attenuation and rearfoot motion cannot be controlled by the orthoses used in this study for a group of healthy runners.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BaitchSPBlakeRLFineganPLSenatoreJ: Biomechanical analysis of running with 25-degree inverted orthotic devices. JAPMA81(12):647–652, 1991.
2.
BatesBTOsternigLRMasonBJamesLS: Foot orthotic devices to modify selected aspects of lower extremity mechanics. Am. J. Sports Med.7(6):338–342, 1979.
3.
BrownGPDonatelliRCatlinPAWoodenMJ: The effect of two types of foot orthoses on rearfoot mechanics. JOSPT21(5):258–267, 1985.
4.
EngJJPerrynowskiMR: The effect of soft foot orthotics on three-dimensional lower-limb kinematics during walking and running. Phys. Ther.74(9):836–844, 1994.
5.
FaunoPKalundSAndreasenIJorgensenU: Soreness in lower extremities and back is reduced by use of shock absorbing heel inserts. Int. J. Sports Med.14(5):288–290, 1993.
6.
FerrisDPLiangKFarleyCT: Runners adjust leg stiffness for their first step on a new running surface. J. Biomech.32:787–794, 1999.
7.
GenovaJMGrossMT: Effect of foot orthotics on calcaneal eversion during standing and treadmill walking for subjects with abnormal pronation. JOSPT30(11):664–675, 2000.
8.
HenningEMLafortuneMA: Tibial bone and skin accelerations during running. Proceedings of the Fifth Biennial Conference and Human Locomotion Symposium of the Canadian Society of Biomechanics. London, Ontario, Canada, Spodym, 1988; pp. 74–75.
9.
HennigEMLafortuneMA: Relationships between ground reaction force and tibial bone acceleration parameters. Int. J. Sport Biomech.7:303–309, 1991.
10.
JohansenMADonatelliRWoodenMJAndrewPDCummingsGS: Effects of three different posting methods on controlling abnormal subtalar pronation. Phys. Ther.74(2):149–161, 1994.
11.
JohnsonGR: The use of spectral analysis to assess the performance of shock absorbing footwear. Eng. Med.15(3):117–122, 1986.
12.
JohnsonGR: The effectiveness of shock-absorbing insoles during normal walking. Pros. Ortho. Int.12:91–95, 1988.
13.
LeungAKLMakAFTEvansJH: Biomechanical gait evaluation of the immediate effect of orthotic treatment for flexible flat foot. Pros. Ortho. Int.22:25–33, 1998.
14.
McCullochMUBruntDLindenDV: The effect of foot orthotics and gait velocity on lower limb kinematics and temporal events of stance. JOSPT17(1):2–10, 1993.
15.
McMahonTAChengGC: The mechanics of running: How does stiffness couple with speed? J. Biomech.23(S1):65–78, 1990.
16.
McPoilTGCornwallMW: Rigid versus soft foot orthoses: A single subject design. JAPMA81(12):638–642, 1991.
17.
MillerCDLaskowskiERSumanVJ: Effect of corrective rearfoot orthotic devices on ground reaction forces during ambulation. Mayo Clin. Proc.71:757–762, 1996.
18.
MillgromCGiladiMKashtanHSimkinAChisinRMarguliesJSteinbergRAharonsonZSteinM: A prospective study of the effect of a shock-absorbing orthotic device on the incidence of stress fractures in military recruits. Foot Ankle Int.6(2):101–104, 1985.
19.
NawoczenskiDACookTMSaltzmanCL: The effect of foot orthotics on three-dimensional kinematics of the leg and rearfoot during running. JOSPT21(6):317–327, 1995.
20.
NiggBMHerzogWReadLJ: Effect of visocelastic insoles on vertical impact forces in heel-toe running. Am. J. Sports Med.16(1):70–76, 1988.
21.
NovickAKelleyDL: Position and movement changes of the foot with orthotic intervention during the loading response of gait. JOSPT11(7):301–312, 1990.
22.
OakleyTPrattDJ: Skeletal transients during heel and toe strike running and the effectiveness of some materials in their attenuation. Clin. Biomech.3:159–165, 1988.
23.
PrattDJ: Mechanisms of shock attenuation via the lower extremity during running. Clin. Biomech.4:51–57, 1989.
24.
PrattDJReesPHRodgersC: Assessment of some shock absorbing insoles. Pros. Ortho. Int.10:43–45, 1986.
25.
RodgersMMLeveauBF: Effectiveness of foot orthotic devices used to modify pronation in runners. JOSPT4(2):86–90, 1982.
26.
RooserBEkbladhRLidgrenL: The shock absorbing effect of soles and insoles. Int. Ortho.12:335–338, 1988.
27.
SchwellnusMPJordannGNoakesTD: Prevention of common overuse injuries by the use of shock absorbing insoles: A prospective study. Am. J. Sports Med.18:636–641, 1990.
28.
ShermanRAKarsetetterKWMayHWoermanAL: Prevention of lower limb pain in soldiers using shock-absorbing orthotic inserts. J. Am. Podiatry Assoc.86(3):117–122, 1996.
29.
ShibaNKitaokaHBCahalanTDChaoEYS: Shock-absorbing effect of shoe insert materials commonly used in management of lower extremity disorders. Clin. Orthop, 310:103–135, 1995.
30.
SmithLSClarkeTEHamillCLSantopietroF: The effects of soft and semi-rigid orthoses upon rearfoot movement in running. JAPMA76(4):227–233, 1986.
31.
StacoffAReinschmidtCNiggBMvan den BogertAJLundbergADenothJStussiE: Effects of foot orthoses on skeletal motion during running. Clin. Biomech.15:54–64, 2000.
32.
WindleCMGregorySMDixonSJ: The shock attenuation of four different insoles when worn in a military boot during running and marching. Gait Posture9:31–37, 1999.
