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.
Background
For Royal Marine recruits in training, the third metatarsal is the most common site for stress fracture. Previous evidence regarding biomechanical factors contributing to metatarsal stress fracture development is conflicting, possibly due to the lack of differentiation between the metatarsals. The present retrospective study compares static anatomical characteristics and dynamic biomechanical variables for Royal Marine recruits with and without a history of third metatarsal stress fracture.
Methods
Ten Royal Marine recruits with a history of third metatarsal stress fracture were compared with control subjects with no previous stress fracture occurrence. Selected static anatomical variables were measured to describe the ankle and subtalar joints. Peak ankle dorsi-flexion and rearfoot eversion were measured during running. In addition, peak vertical and horizontal ground reaction force variables were compared for the two study groups.
Findings
No significant differences in static anatomical variables were identified between study groups. During running, peak rearfoot eversion was found to occur significantly earlier for the stress fracture group than for their matched controls, suggesting an increase in time spent loading the forefoot. The peak applied resultant horizontal force during the braking phase was directed significantly more laterally for the stress fracture group. In addition, the peak magnitude of resultant horizontal force applied during the propulsion phase was significantly lower for the stress fracture subjects.
Interpretation
The findings of this study highlight the importance of including dynamic biomechanical data when exploring variables associated with the development of third metatarsal stress fracture and indicate that successful interventions to reduce the incidence of this injury are likely to focus on forefoot function during braking and propulsion.
3rd metatarsal stress #'s
Linear Mode
