Calcaneus range of motion underestimated by markers on running shoe heel

• Published in: Gait & posture Vol. 63; no. NA; pp. 68 - 72
• Main Authors: Alcantara, Ryan S., Trudeau, Matthieu B., Rohr, Eric S.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Elsevier B.V 01.06.2018
• Subjects: Biomechanics; Footwear; Injury; Kinematics; Biomechanics; Injury; Footwear; Kinematics
• ISSN: 0966-6362; 1879-2219; 1879-2219
• DOI: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2018.04.035

•Shoe-mounted markers underestimate calcaneus ROM across all planes during running.•No effect of footwear heel counter modification on tibia internal rotation.•No effect of tested footwear midsole characteristics on tibia internal rotation. The measurement of rearfoot kinematics by placing reflective markers on the shoe heel assumes its motion is identical to the foot’s motion. Studies have compared foot and shoe kinematics during running but with conflicting results. The primary purpose of this study was to compare shoe and calcaneus three-dimensional range of motion during running. A secondary purpose was to determine the effect of a less rigid heel counter on tibia motion. Do markers placed on the shoe heel accurately represent calcaneus kinematics during running? Three-dimensional coordinate data were collected on 14 subjects (M/F: 9/5) who ran on an instrumented treadmill at 3.35 m/s under four conditions: modified/intact neutral shoes, and modified/intact support shoes. Shoes were modified by placing holes through the heel to allow for shoe heel and calcaneus coordinate data to be collected simultaneously via reflective markers on the shoe and on the skin of the heel within the shoe. Calcaneus, shoe heel, and tibia ROM were calculated from 0 to 50% stance phase and compared across shoe conditions. Calcaneal frontal plane ROM was significantly greater than neutral and support shoe heel ROM (p < 0.001). Calcaneus ROM was also significantly greater than shoe heel ROM in the transverse (p < 0.001) and sagittal (p < 0.001) planes. No change in tibial transverse plane ROM was observed (p = 0.346) across shoe heel conditions. Shoe markers significantly underestimated calcaneus ROM across all planes of motion. These findings suggest calcaneus kinematics cannot be accurately measured with markers placed solely on the shoe heel. Additionally, the required modifications to the shoe’s heel had no effect on tibia ROM in the transverse plane.