Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Rev Bras Ortop (Sao Paulo) 2022; 57(01): 167-174
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1741021
Artigos Originais
Ortopedia Pediátrica

The Influence of the Shoe over the Medial Foot Arch and the Lower Limbs Kinematics in Toddlers[*]

Article in several languages: português | English
Liria Akie Okai-Nobrega 
1   Departamento de Fisioterapia, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brasil
2   Anamê Baby Design, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brasil
,
Thiago Ribeiro Teles Santos 
1   Departamento de Fisioterapia, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brasil
,
Ana Paula Lage 
2   Anamê Baby Design, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brasil
,
Priscila Albuquerque de Araújo 
1   Departamento de Fisioterapia, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brasil
,
Thales Rezende de Souza 
1   Departamento de Fisioterapia, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brasil
,
Sérgio Teixeira Fonseca 
1   Departamento de Fisioterapia, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brasil
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective To evaluate the biomechanical behavior of the medial longitudinal arch (MLA) of the foot and the kinematic parameters of the lower limbs with biomimetic footwear (BF) and non-biomimetic (NB1, NB2, NB3 and NB4) footwear in children at the beginning of the gait acquisition phase.

Methods Four toddlers were evaluated at the beginning of the gait acquisition phase under the following conditions: walking barefoot, ambulation with BF and NB1, NB2, NB3 and NB4 footwear in hard floor. BF is described as biomimetic because of its property of emulating natural and irregular floors through a dynamic internal insole. The MLA and kinematics of the hip, knee, and ankle during gait were evaluated by three-dimensional motion analysis system. The similarity between the kinematic curves of barefoot and footwear conditions was analyzed by root mean square error (RMSE).

Results The use of BF presented the highest magnitude of MLA and the greatest difference in relation to barefoot condition (higher RMSE). The BF showed less difference in the kinematics of the knee and ankle joints during gait when compared to barefoot condition (lower RMSE). NB2 footwear presented hip kinematics more similar to barefoot condition (lower RMSE).

Conclusion Biomimetics footwear and NB2 shoes (both with wider forefoot region) generated smaller differences in lower limbs compared to barefoot. In addition, the MLA was higher in the BF, probably because different design from other shoes.

Keywords

gait - child - biomimetics - shoes

Support Sources

Motion Analysis Lab was partially funded by the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES - funding code 001), and this research was funded by Anamê Ciência e Tecnologia em Saúde Infantil Ltda.


* Work developed at the Movement Analysis Laboratory (LAM) of the Department of Physiotherapy, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.




Publication History

Received: 10 May 2021

Accepted: 09 September 2021

Article published online:
24 January 2022

© 2022. Sociedade Brasileira de Ortopedia e Traumatologia. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commecial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda.
Rua do Matoso 170, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20270-135, Brazil

 

  • Referências

  • 1 Kung SM, Fink PW, Hume P, Shultz SP. Kinematic and kinetic differences between barefoot and shod walking in children. Footwear Sci 2015; 7 (02) 95-105
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Staheli LT. Shoes for children: a review. Pediatrics 1991; 88 (02) 371-375
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Morrison SC, Price C, McClymont J, Nester C. Big issues for small feet: developmental, biomechanical and clinical narratives on children's footwear. J Foot Ankle Res 2018; 11 (01) 39
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Wegener C, Hunt AE, Vanwanseele B, Burns J, Smith RM. Effect of children's shoes on gait: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Foot Ankle Res 2011; 4 (01) 3
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Hill M, Healy A, Chockalingam N. Key concepts in children's footwear research: a scoping review focusing on therapeutic footwear. J Foot Ankle Res 2019; 12 (01) 25
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Cranage S, Perraton L, Bowles KA, Williams C. A comparison of young children's spatiotemporal measures of walking and running in three common types of footwear compared to bare feet. Gait Posture 2020; 81: 218-224
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Sutherland DH, Olshen R, Cooper L, Woo SL. The development of mature gait. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1980; 62 (03) 336-353
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Adolph KE, Cole WG, Komati M. et al. How do you learn to walk? Thousands of steps and dozens of falls per day. Psychol Sci 2012; 23 (11) 1387-1394
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Hallemans A, De Clercq D, Van Dongen S, Aerts P. Changes in foot-function parameters during the first 5 months after the onset of independent walking: a longitudinal follow-up study. Gait Posture 2006; 23 (02) 142-148
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Ledebt A, van Wieringen PCW, Savelsbergh GJP. Functional significance of foot rotation asymmetry in early walking. Infant Behav Dev 2004; 27 (02) 163-172
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Kelikian AS. Ed. Sarrafian's Anatomy of the Foot and Ankle: Descriptive, Topographic, Functional. 3rd ed.. Philadelphia: Lippincot Williams &Wilkins; 2011
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Hollander K, van der Zwaard BC, de Villiers JE, Braumann KM, Venter R, Zech A. The effects of being habitually barefoot on foot mechanics and motor performance in children and adolescents aged 6-18 years: study protocol for a multicenter cross-sectional study (Barefoot LIFE project). J Foot Ankle Res 2016; 9 (01) 36
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Kurup HV, Clark CIM, Dega RK. Footwear and orthopaedics. Foot Ankle Surg 2012; 18 (02) 79-83
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Holowka NB, Wallace IJ, Lieberman DE. Foot strength and stiffness are related to footwear use in a comparison of minimally- vs. conventionally-shod populations. Sci Rep 2018; 8 (01) 3679
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Lejeune TM, Willems PA, Heglund NC. Mechanics and energetics of human locomotion on sand. J Exp Biol 1998; 201 (Pt 13): 2071-2080
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 van den Berg MEL, Barr CJ, McLoughlin JV, Crotty M. Effect of walking on sand on gait kinematics in individuals with multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Relat Disord 2017; 16: 15-21
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Stenvinkel P, Painer J, Johnson RJ, Natterson-Horowitz B.. Biomimetics- Nature's roadmap to insights and solutions for burden of lifestyle diseases. Journal of Internal Medicine 2020; 287 (03) 238-251
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Portney LG, Watkins MP. The role of theory in clinical research. In: Foundations of Clinical Research: Applications to Practice. Connecticut: Appleton & Lange; 1993: 17-26
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Robertson GE, Caldwell GE, Hamill J, Kamen G, Whittlesey SN. Research Methods in Biomechanics. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 2014
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Heyrman L, Feys H, Molenaers G. et al. Three-dimensional head and trunk movement characteristics during gait in children with spastic diplegia. Gait Posture 2013; 38 (04) 770-776
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Michael W, Richard S, Lee S. Feet and Footwear: Applying Biological Design and Mismatch Theory to Running Injuries. Int J Sport Exerc Med 2018; 4 (02) 1-7
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Bencke J, Christiansen D, Jensen K, Okholm A, Sonne-Holm S, Bandholm T. Measuring medial longitudinal arch deformation during gait. A reliability study. Gait Posture 2012; 35 (03) 400-404
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Bandholm T, Boysen L, Haugaard S, Zebis MK, Bencke J. Foot medial longitudinal-arch deformation during quiet standing and gait in subjects with medial tibial stress syndrome. J Foot Ankle Surg 2008; 47 (02) 89-95
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Gomes RBO, Souza TR, Paes BDC. et al. Foot pronation during walking is associated to the mechanical resistance of the midfoot joint complex. Gait Posture 2019; 70: 20-23
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Onodera AN, Sacco IC, Morioka EH, Souza PS, de Sá MR, Amadio AC. What is the best method for child longitudinal plantar arch assessment and when does arch maturation occur?. Foot 2008; 18 (03) 142-149
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Price C, McClymont J, Hashmi F, Morrison SC, Nester C. Development of the infant foot as a load bearing structure: study protocol for a longitudinal evaluation (the Small Steps study). J Foot Ankle Res 2018; 11: 33
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Thelen E. Motor development. A new synthesis. Am Psychol 1995; 50 (02) 79-95
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Franklin S, Grey MJ, Heneghan N, Bowen L, Li FX. Barefoot vs common footwear: A systematic review of the kinematic, kinetic and muscle activity differences during walking. Gait Posture 2015; 42 (03) 230-239
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Neumann DA. Kinesiology of the Musculoskeletal System: Foundations for Rehabilitation. 2nd.. London: Mosby; 2009
    Google Scholar
  • 30 Souza TR, Pinto RZ, Trede RG, Kirkwood RN, Fonseca ST. Temporal couplings between rearfoot-shank complex and hip joint during walking. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2010; 25 (07) 745-748
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar