ORIGINAL PAPER
Correlation of foot posture with balance and pelvic tilt in healthy runners
 
More details
Hide details
1
Srinivas College of Physiotherapy and Research Centre, Mangalore, India
 
2
Centre for Diabetic Foot Care and Research, Department of Physiotherapy, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, India
 
 
Submission date: 2020-04-22
 
 
Acceptance date: 2020-06-15
 
 
Publication date: 2021-11-24
 
 
Physiother Quart. 2021;29(4):18-21
 
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Introduction:
The purpose of the study was to find out the relationship of hyper-pronated foot with anterior pelvic tilt and dynamic balance in recreational runners. Hyper-pronated foot is a functional deformity which mainly affects the total body kinematic chain during dynamic weight-bearing events such as running when the foot lands on the ground. Furthermore, individuals with hyper-pronated foot may exhibit anterior pelvic tilt owing to the biomechanical relations, which alters balance as well. Runners with hyper-pronated feet are at high risk of injury, possibly because of larger torque generated at the lower limb.

Methods:
A cross-sectional study was conducted in 55 healthy recreational runners with hyper-pronated foot aged 19–30 years. They were assessed by foot posture index for hyper-pronated foot, Star Excursion Balance Test for dynamic balance evaluation, and the photogrammetry method to determine the anterior pelvic tilt angle.

Results:
The results revealed a poor correlation between foot posture index and dynamic body balance (r = 0.23) and a moderate correlation between foot posture index and anterior pelvic tilt angle (r = 0.47).

Conclusions:
There was no significant correlation of foot posture index with dynamic body balance, whereas a minimal correlation was found between foot posture index and the anterior pelvic tilt angle. Therefore, hyper-pronated foot does not significantly directly influence balance or posture.

 
REFERENCES (27)
1.
Ferber R, Hreljac A, Kendall KD. Suspected mechanisms in the cause of overuse running injuries: a clinical review. Sports Health. 2009;1(3):242–246; doi: 10.1177/1941738109334272.
 
2.
Dugan SA, Bhat KP. Biomechanics and analysis of running gait. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2005;16(3):603–621; doi: 10.1016/j.pmr.2005.02.007.
 
3.
Hetsroni I, Finestone A, Milgrom C, Sira DB, Nyska M, Radeva-Petrova D, et al. A prospective biomechanical study of the association between foot pronation and the incidence of anterior knee pain among military recruits. J Bone Joint Surg. 2006;88(7):905–908; doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.88B7.17826.
 
4.
Pohl MB, Buckley JG. Changes in foot and shank coupling due to alterations in foot strike pattern during running. Clin Biomech. 2008;23(3):334–341; doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2007.09.016.
 
5.
Ribeiro AP, Trombini-Souza F, Tessutti V, Rodrigues Li­ma F, de Camargo Neves Sacco I, Amado João SM. Rearfoot alignment and medial longitudinal arch configurations of runners with symptoms and histories of plantar fasciitis. Clinics. 2011;66(6):1027–1033; doi: 10.1590/S1807-59322011000600018.
 
6.
Dias Lopes A, Hespanhol LC Júnior, Yeung SS, Oliveira Pena Costa L. What are the main running-related musculoskeletal injuries? A systematic review. Sports Med. 2012;42(10):891–905; doi: 10.1007/BF03262301.
 
7.
D’Andréa Greve JM, Ferrari Bechara Andere N, Silva Luna NM, Canonica AC, da Cruz TMF, Peterson M, et al. Risk factors for overuse injuries in runners’ ankles: a literature review. MedicalExpress. 2015;2(3):M150301; doi: 10.5935/MedicalExpress.2015.03.01.
 
8.
Balouchy R. Comparative analysis of lower limb alignments in healthy subjects and subjects with back pain. Ann Appl Sport Sci. 2015;3(2):33–42; doi: 10.18869/ACADPUB.AASSJOURNAL.3.2.33.
 
9.
Menz HB, Dufour AB, Riskowski JL, Hillstrom HJ, Hannan MT. Foot posture, foot function and low back pain: the Framingham Foot Study. Rheumatology. 2013;52(12):2275–2282; doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/ket298.
 
10.
Hamel AJ, Sharkey NA, Buczek FL, Michelson J. Relative motions of the tibia, talus, and calcaneus during the stance phase of gait: a cadaver study. Gait Posture. 2004;20(2):147–153; doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2003.07.003.
 
11.
Souza TR, Pinto RZ, Trede RG, Kirkwood RN, Fonseca ST. Temporal couplings between rearfoot-shank complex and hip joint during walking. Clin Biomech. 2010;25(7):745–748; doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2010.04.012.
 
12.
Hedayati R, Hojati Shargh M, Soltani T, Saeb M, Ghorbani R, Hajihasani A. The relation between clinical measurements of plantar characteristics and static and dynamic balance indices. Middle East J Rehabil Health Stud. 2014;1(2):e24269; doi: 10.17795/mejrh-24269.
 
13.
McGuine TA, Greene JJ, Best T, Leverson G. Balance as a predictor of ankle injuries in high school basketball players. Clin J Sport Med. 2000;10(4):239–244; doi: 10.1097/00042752-200010000-00003.
 
14.
Riemann BL, Lephart SM. The sensorimotor system, part II: The role of proprioception in motor control and functional joint stability. J Athl Train. 2002;37(1):80–84.
 
15.
Anzai E, Nakajima K, Iwakami Y, Sato M, Ino S, Ifukube T, et al. Effects of foot arch structure on postural stability. Clin Res Foot Ankle. 2014;2:132; doi: 10.4172/2329-910X.1000133.
 
16.
Hollander K, Zech A, Rahlf AL, Orendurff MS, Stebbins J, Heidt C. The relationship between static and dynamic foot posture and running biomechanics: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gait Posture. 2019;72:109–122; doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2019.05.031.
 
17.
Lubetzky VA, Kramer AP. The association between foot morphology and dynamic balance performance as measured by the Star Excursion Balance Test. J Exerc Sports Orthop. 2015;2(3):1–7; doi: 10.15226/2374-6904/2/3/00132.
 
18.
Karthikeyan G, Jadav Jayraj S, Narayanan V. Effect of forefoot type on postural stability – a cross sectional comparative study. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2015;10(2):213–224.
 
19.
Tsai L-C, Yu B, Mercer VS, Gross MT. Comparison of different structural foot types for measures of standing postural control. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2006;36(12):942–953; doi: 10.2519/jospt.2006.2336.
 
20.
Cote KP, Brunet ME, Gansneder BM, Shultz SJ. Effects of pronated and supinated foot postures on static and dynamic postural stability. J Athl Train. 2005;40(1):41–46.
 
21.
Khamis S, Yizhar Z. Effect of feet hyperpronation on pelvic alignment in a standing position. Gait Posture. 2007;25(1):127–134; doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2006.02.005.
 
22.
Terada M, Wittwer AM, Gribble PA. Intra-rater and inter-rater reliability of the five image-based criteria of the foot posture index-6. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2014;9(2):187–194.
 
23.
Redmond AC, Crosbie J, Ouvrier RA. Development and validation of a novel rating system for scoring standing foot posture: the foot posture index. Clin Biomech. 2006;21(1):89–98; doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2005.08.002.
 
24.
Gribble PA, Hertel J, Pilsky P. Using the Star Excursion Balance Test to assess dynamic postural-control deficits and outcomes in lower extremity injury: a literature and systematic review. J Athl Train. 2012;47(3):339–357; doi: 10.4085/1062-6050-47.3.08.
 
25.
Bulow A, Anderson JE, Leiter JR, MacDonald PB, Pee­ler J. The modified Star Excursion Balance and Y-Balance Test results differ when assessing physically active healthy adolescent females. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2019;14(2):192–203; doi: 10.26603/ijspt20190192.
 
26.
Helmy NA, Sayyad MM, Kattabei OM. Intra-rater and inter-rater reliability of Surgimap Spine software for measuring spinal postural angles from digital photographs. Bull Fac Phys Ther. 2015;20:193–199; doi: 10.4103/1110-6611.174719.
 
27.
Al Abdulwahab SS, Kachanathu SJ. The effect of various degrees of foot posture on standing balance in a healthy adult population. Somatosens Mot Res. 2015;32(2):172–176; doi: 10.3109/08990220.2015.1029608.
 
eISSN:2544-4395
Journals System - logo
Scroll to top