Biomechanics Research - Mechanics of Living Organisms, Movement, Locomotion, Prosthetic Limbs

Biomechanics Research Today is a free monthly online journal that collates and summarizes the latest research about Biomechanics, including details on mechanics of living organisms, movement, locomotion, prosthetic limbs.


Biomechanics Research Today

Home

View Latest Issue

Information About Biomechanics

Books on Biomechanics

Advertising in Research Today

View Other Research Today Publications



The effect of custom-made braces for the ankle and hindfoot on ankle and foot kinematics and ground reaction forces.

Kitaoka HB, Crevoisier XM, Harbst K, Hansen D, Kotajarvi B, Kaufman K

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic Rochester, MN 55905, USA. kitaoka.harold@mayo.edu

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects on gait of custom-made polypropylene orthoses: ankle-foot orthosis (AFO), rigid hindfoot orthosis (HFO-R), and articulated hindfoot orthosis (HFO-A). DESIGN: Experimental assessment. SETTING: Institutional practice, motion analysis laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty asymptomatic normative subjects. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Three-dimensional kinematics, ground reaction force, and time-related factors in 4 conditions: shoe only, and shod with the AFO, HFO-R, and HFO-A. RESULTS: The AFO and HFO-R limited sagittal and coronal plane ankle-hindfoot motion. The HFO-A limited hindfoot coronal motion while allowing normal sagittal motion. At the midfoot, the AFO and HFO-A limited transverse motion, but the HFO-A also limited sagittal and coronal motion. Use of the HFO-R resulted in exaggerated midfoot sagittal and coronal motion. Braces that limited motion to a greater degree were associated with more atypical kinetic variables, indicative of less dynamic gait. The HFO-A resulted in ground reaction forces most similar to unbraced conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Alteration in gait was affected by orthosis design. Orthoses with a rigid component crossing a joint restricted motion at that joint, but potentially compromised typical gait kinetic factors. For immobilizing the hindfoot, the HFO-A may be more comfortable and still provide more stability than the HFO-R or AFO.

Published 10 January 2006 in Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 87(1): 130-5.
Full-text of this article is available online (may require subscription).

Place a permanent text-link or advertisement here for just US$15.

© 2005-2008 Biomechanics Research Today. All Rights Reserved.



Biomechanics Research Today Archive:

Volume 1 (2005)
  Issue 1 (September)
  Issue 2 (October)
  Issue 3 (November)
  Issue 4 (December)

Volume 2 (2006)
  Issue 1 (January)
  Issue 2 (February)
  Issue 3 (March)
  Issue 4 (April)
  Issue 5 (May)
  Issue 6 (June)
  Issue 7 (July)
  Issue 8 (August)
  Issue 9 (September)
  Issue 10 (October)
  Issue 11 (November)
  Issue 12 (December)

Volume 3 (2007)
  Issue 1 (January)
  Issue 2 (February)
  Issue 3 (March)
  Issue 4 (April)
  Issue 5 (May)
  Issue 6 (June)
  Issue 7 (July)
  Issue 8 (August)
  Issue 9 (September)
  Issue 10 (October)
  Issue 11 (November)
  Issue 12 (December)

Volume 4 (2008)
  Issue 1 (January)
  Issue 2 (February)
  Issue 3 (March)
  Issue 4 (April)
  Issue 5 (May)
  Issue 6 (June)
  Issue 7 (July)



Biomechanics Books

Life Span Motor Development

Life Span Motor Development