Affordable Access

Publisher Website

Foot motion in children and adults

Journal of Foot and Ankle Research
Springer (Biomed Central Ltd.)
Publication Date
DOI: 10.1186/1757-1146-1-s1-o26
  • Oral Presentation
  • Mathematics

Abstract ral Journal of Foot and Ankle Research ss BioMed Cent Open AcceOral presentation Foot motion in children and adults Sebastian Wolf Address: Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Germany Email: Sebastian Wolf - [email protected] Introduction When studying the function of the human foot, foot pres- sure measurements offer some insight into the biome- chanics of the growing foot [1] and models have been proposed to measure the foot kinematics especially of children [2]. Aside from ankle kinematics however [3], lit- tle is known about differences in foot motion between children and adults. This ongoing study therefore exam- ines the foot kinematics of normal subjects in a large age range. Methods Normal feet of 30 children aged 4–11 years (mean 7.8 yrs) and of 24 adults aged 19–51 years (mean 32.4 yrs) have been examined by instrumented gait analysis using the Heidelberg foot measurement method (HFMM) [4] with the marker set illustrated in Figure 1. In this method, the motion of the hind foot is described relative to the tibia by tibio-talar (ankle) flexion and subtalar rotation. For mid- and forefoot motion, functional parameters are evaluated which are relevant for a clinical evaluation forming together a standardized set of 12 angles. The ROM in each angle has been determined across the gait cycle as a "dynamic" evaluation. Further, these parameters have been evaluated in mid swing to find "static" differences with respect to age in the geometry of the unloaded foot. A student T-Test was used to evaluate differences between the feet of children and adults. Results Data are summarized in Table 1. We find a smaller ROM ROM in tibio-talar flexion. Further, children show smaller ROMs in forefoot supination and adduction. Most prom- inent "static" findings in mid swing were a higher cavus (smaller medial arch angle) and less divergent metatarsals (MT 1–5 angle) with also a smaller ROM in children com- pared to adults. Conc

There are no comments yet on this publication. Be the first to share your thoughts.


Seen <100 times