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.
PURPOSE:: Chronic Achilles tendon (AT) injuries are common, but kinematic studies confirming the exact mechanisms of injury and how orthoses are effective are lacking. Existing analysis often relies on discrete measures and provides an incomplete analysis because many of the data are discarded. Functional data analysis (FDA) views the entire dataset as a function, thus retaining the main features of the curve. This study uses FDA to examine the mechanisms of chronic AT injury and the functional effects of orthoses.
METHODS:: Twelve subjects with a history of chronic AT injury and 12 controls ran on a treadmill with and without customized orthoses. Three-dimensional kinematic data were obtained using Qualisys motion capture systems operating at 200 Hz. Ankle dorsiflexion (ADF), knee flexion (KF), eversion (EV), calcaneal, and leg abduction angles were calculated across stance. These angle data were represented as functions, and functional principal components were extracted to describe the factors accounting for variation in the data. These components were compared in AT versus control groups and orthoses versus no-orthoses conditions.
RESULTS:: Kinematic differences were observed, with the AT group showing greater EV, ADF, and KF during stance, whereas orthoses reduced ADF but increased EV. Different patterns of frontal plane variation distinguished between groups and conditions.
CONCLUSION:: Results provided additional information about movement patterns compared to traditional approaches and identified the first half of stance as the most relevant period in injury occurrence. The study showed evidence that variability is related to the presence of injury in this clinical population. Further FDA focusing on within-subject
Re: Variability and chronic achilles tendon injury
Craig;
thanks for posting this Abstract. I read this just last week and felt it was a great article on interpreting F/T curves and 3D analysis.
I do not understand the math they used for their functional data analysis (FDA), but it seemed to me that they found a way to use math to show ovearall links in kinematic changes in gait despite common individual analyses that did not seem to show any commonality.
Definitely worth a read. I do wonder about their findings that there is increase Ankle DFion ROM (ADF) in these patients w/ Achilles problems. I do not see that at all. I personally think it is a flaw in the 3D analysis technique of the AJ that does not account for increased ROM of the MTJ w/ FF abduction that may appear as increased DFion of the Ankle Joint. Other than that, another step forward!
Re: Variability and chronic achilles tendon injury
Just a wild abstract thought......
Achillies tendonopathy and related soft tisue injuries preoccupy the nerves in the area, and in a similal way to pain gait theory, reduce the amount of proprioceptive feedback form the ankle joint, allowing more ankle dorsiflexion/range of motion?
Possible?
__________________
Adrian Misseri
B.Pod.,M.Hlth.Sci.(Pod.)
Re: Variability and chronic achilles tendon injury
Quote:
RESULTS:: Kinematic differences were observed, with the AT group showing greater EV, ADF, and KF during stance, whereas orthoses reduced ADF but increased EV. Different patterns of frontal plane variation distinguished between groups and conditions.
Just makes you wonder about the orthoses they made. I wonder where they obtained the pronation boosters?
Variability and chronic achilles tendon injury
?
Linear Mode
