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.
Forefoot varus is a static deformity not easy to assess clinically. If left uncorrected, it is thought to affect both the posture of the patient and the kinematics of their lower limbs, and even the spine. Three-dimensional gait assessment could help to confirm forefoot varus diagnosis and provide objective evidence of the functional adaptive mechanisms postulated in the literature. The recently available Oxford Foot Model was used, simultaneously with a conventional lower limb model, to compare the kinematics of 10 forefoot varus children (aged 8-13) and 11 healthy controls (aged 7-13) during gait. Data acquisition was performed using a six-camera motion capture system, with a total of 27 reflective markers. A patient-by-patient comparison with the controls suggested several compensation patterns, although statistically significant differences were found only for the mean values of hip adduction/abduction during load response and midstance and hip flexion/extension during pre-swing. A multivariate statistical technique was used to determine which of the measured variables better separated both groups. The best discriminant model presented here includes hip adduction/abduction during load response, hindfoot/tibia inversion/eversion during pre-swing, hindfoot/tibia dorsiflexion/plantar flexion during load response and arch height during midstance, providing a rate of correct classification of 81%. The results could not fully confirm the kinematic relationships suggested in the literature. The small degree of forefoot varus deformity present in the patient group could have prevented other variables from becoming discriminant. A larger patient sample would help determine the possible different compensatory patterns to different degrees of forefoot varus