Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums, for communication between foot health professionals about podiatry and related topics.
You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members (PM), upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, earn CPD points and access many other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisments in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Analysis of foot structure in athletes sustaining proximal fifth metatarsal stress fracture.
Hetsroni I, Nyska M, Ben-Sira D, Mann G, Segal O, Maoz G, Ayalon M. Foot Ankle Int. 2010 Mar;31(3):203-11.
Quote:
BACKGROUND: In the past, several studies provided anecdotal descriptions of high-arched feet in individuals sustaining proximal fifth metatarsal stress fractures. This relationship has never been supported by scientific evidence. Our objective was to examine whether athletes who sustained this injury had an exceptional static foot structure or dynamic loading pattern. MATERIALS AND
METHODS: Ten injured professional soccer players who regained full professional activity following a unilateral proximal fifth metatarsal stress fracture and ten control soccer players were examined. Independent variables included static evaluation of foot and arch structure, followed by dynamic plantar foot pressure evaluation. Each variable was compared between injured, contra-lateral uninjured, and control feet.
RESULTS: Static measurements of foot and arch structure did not reveal differences among the groups. However, plantar pressure evaluation revealed relative unloading of the fourth metatarsal in injured and uninjured limbs of injured athletes compared with control, while the fifth metatarsal revealed pressure reduction only in the injured limbs of injured athletes.
CONCLUSION: Athletes who sustained proximal fifth metatarsal stress fracture were not characterized by an exceptional static foot structure. Dynamically, lateral metatarsal unloading during stance may either play a role in the pathogenesis of the injury, or alternately represent an adaptive process.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Footwear fabrication for previously injured athletes should not categorically address cushioning properties designed for high-arch feet, but rather focus on individual dynamic evaluation of forefoot loading, with less attention applied to static foot and arch characteristics
Fifth metatarsal stress fracture
Linear Mode
