Analysis of medial deviation of center of pressure after initial heel contact in forefoot varus

After initial heel contact, the rearfoot everts and causes medial deviation of the center of pressure (CoP). Although rearfoot angle in single-limb stance has been associated with forefoot varus (FV) ≥ 8°, medial CoP deviation has not. Methods: After 12 participants with FV < 8° (neutral group) a...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Wei-Li Hsi
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Elsevier 2016-03-01
Series:Journal of the Formosan Medical Association
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0929664615001321
id doaj-44f7d139e4374f1399ca68df8bacd15d
record_format Article
spelling doaj-44f7d139e4374f1399ca68df8bacd15d2020-11-24T22:25:51ZengElsevierJournal of the Formosan Medical Association0929-66462016-03-01115320320910.1016/j.jfma.2015.03.004Analysis of medial deviation of center of pressure after initial heel contact in forefoot varusWei-Li HsiAfter initial heel contact, the rearfoot everts and causes medial deviation of the center of pressure (CoP). Although rearfoot angle in single-limb stance has been associated with forefoot varus (FV) ≥ 8°, medial CoP deviation has not. Methods: After 12 participants with FV < 8° (neutral group) and 11 participants with FV ≥ 8° (FV group) stepped one heel initially onto an array of pressure sensors parallel to its Y coordinate axis, when the CoP of array deviated most medially, the X coordinate of the CoP of each row was calculated to find the most medial CoP of the row. Starting since the row with the most medial CoP just began to have the same sensors with pressures >0 kPa as when it had the most medial CoP, the medial deviations of the CoP of the array, the most medial CoP of the row, and its relative position in the row (CoP%), were compared between neutral and FV groups. Results: The medial deviations of the most medial CoP of the row (1.1 ± 0.6 vs. 1.6 ± 0.3 mm, p = 0.049) and CoP% (2.9 ± 1.4 vs. 4.2 ± 1.1%, p = 0.023) were significantly different between neutral and FV groups, whereas that of the CoP of the array (1.1 ± 0.6 vs. 1.4 ± 0.6 mm, p = 0.36) was not. Conclusion: The most medial CoP of the row and CoP% detected increased medial CoP deviation in FV ≥ 8°, and may be applied to other clinical conditions where rearfoot angle and CoP of the array after initial heel contact cannot detect significant differences.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0929664615001321biomechanical phenomenafootheelweight-bearing
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Wei-Li Hsi
spellingShingle Wei-Li Hsi
Analysis of medial deviation of center of pressure after initial heel contact in forefoot varus
Journal of the Formosan Medical Association
biomechanical phenomena
foot
heel
weight-bearing
author_facet Wei-Li Hsi
author_sort Wei-Li Hsi
title Analysis of medial deviation of center of pressure after initial heel contact in forefoot varus
title_short Analysis of medial deviation of center of pressure after initial heel contact in forefoot varus
title_full Analysis of medial deviation of center of pressure after initial heel contact in forefoot varus
title_fullStr Analysis of medial deviation of center of pressure after initial heel contact in forefoot varus
title_full_unstemmed Analysis of medial deviation of center of pressure after initial heel contact in forefoot varus
title_sort analysis of medial deviation of center of pressure after initial heel contact in forefoot varus
publisher Elsevier
series Journal of the Formosan Medical Association
issn 0929-6646
publishDate 2016-03-01
description After initial heel contact, the rearfoot everts and causes medial deviation of the center of pressure (CoP). Although rearfoot angle in single-limb stance has been associated with forefoot varus (FV) ≥ 8°, medial CoP deviation has not. Methods: After 12 participants with FV < 8° (neutral group) and 11 participants with FV ≥ 8° (FV group) stepped one heel initially onto an array of pressure sensors parallel to its Y coordinate axis, when the CoP of array deviated most medially, the X coordinate of the CoP of each row was calculated to find the most medial CoP of the row. Starting since the row with the most medial CoP just began to have the same sensors with pressures >0 kPa as when it had the most medial CoP, the medial deviations of the CoP of the array, the most medial CoP of the row, and its relative position in the row (CoP%), were compared between neutral and FV groups. Results: The medial deviations of the most medial CoP of the row (1.1 ± 0.6 vs. 1.6 ± 0.3 mm, p = 0.049) and CoP% (2.9 ± 1.4 vs. 4.2 ± 1.1%, p = 0.023) were significantly different between neutral and FV groups, whereas that of the CoP of the array (1.1 ± 0.6 vs. 1.4 ± 0.6 mm, p = 0.36) was not. Conclusion: The most medial CoP of the row and CoP% detected increased medial CoP deviation in FV ≥ 8°, and may be applied to other clinical conditions where rearfoot angle and CoP of the array after initial heel contact cannot detect significant differences.
topic biomechanical phenomena
foot
heel
weight-bearing
url http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0929664615001321
work_keys_str_mv AT weilihsi analysisofmedialdeviationofcenterofpressureafterinitialheelcontactinforefootvarus
_version_ 1725755960743428096