PTJ
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


PHYS THER
Vol. 74, No. 2, February 1994, pp. 149-158

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Rapid Responses are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Johanson, M.
Right arrow Articles by Cummings, G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Johanson, M.
Right arrow Articles by Cummings, G.

Article

Effects of three different posting methods on controlling abnormal subtalar pronation

MA Johanson, R Donatelli, MJ Wooden, PD Andrew, and GS Cummings

Physiotherapy Associates, Peachtree City, GA 30269.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE. The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of different orthotic posting methods on controlling abnormal foot pronation during ambulation. SUBJECTS. Twenty-two individuals with forefoot varus deformities of at least 8 degrees (13 women, aged 21-40 years, and 9 men, aged 20-50 years) participated in the study. The female subjects had an average height and weight of 162.6 cm (64 in) and 55.3 kg (122 lb), and the male subjects had an average height and weight of 175.3 cm (69 in) and 80.7 kg (178 lb). METHODS. The subjects were examined with a computerized video motion analysis system. A control trial consisted of walking at 4.0 km/h in running shoes. Experimental trials included walking at 4.0 km/h in running shoes with unposted orthotic shells and with orthotic shells posted in the forefoot, the rear foot, and both forefoot and rear foot. RESULTS. Maximal calf-to-calcaneus and calcaneus-to-vertical angles were decreased more by orthoses posted in both the forefoot and the rear foot than by orthoses posted only in the forefoot. No difference in maximal calf-to-calcaneus and calcaneus-to-vertical angles were found with combined forefoot and rear-foot posting compared with posting in the rear foot alone. The maximal calf-to-calcaneus angle was decreased by orthoses posted in any of the three methods and by the orthotic shell alone when compared with shoes alone. The maximal calcaneus-to-vertical angle was decreased by orthoses posted in any of the three methods, but not by the orthotic shell alone when compared with shoes alone. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION. Clinicians should consider combined posting or rear-foot posting alone when maximal control of rear-foot frontal-plane pronation is desired, though forefoot posting alone and the orthotic shell also provide control of rear-foot frontal-plane pronation.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
ptjournalHome page
R. T. Cheung and G. Y. Ng
Influence of Different Footwear on Force of Landing During Running
Physical Therapy, May 1, 2008; 88(5): 620 - 628.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Am. Podiatr. Med. Assoc.Home page
J. S. Paton and S. K. Spooner
Effect of Extrinsic Rearfoot Post Design on the Lateral-to-Medial Position and Velocity of the Center of Pressure.
J Am Podiatr Med Assoc, September 1, 2006; 96(5): 383 - 392.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Br. J. Sports. Med.Home page
B Heiderscheit, J Hamill, and D Tiberio
A biomechanical perspective: do foot orthoses work?
Br. J. Sports Med., February 1, 2001; 35(1): 4 - 5.
[Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1994 by the American Physical Therapy Association.