The relationship between static and dynamic foot posture and running biomechanics: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Introduction
Foot and medial longitudinal arch characteristics have frequently been discussed as potential contributing factors to overuse injuries of the lower extremities [1,2]. Although the evidence is not conclusive [1,3,4], high arched feet are thought to be more rigid with less capacity for shock absorption [5,6]. This may lead to a higher incidence of ankle injuries, bony injuries (especially to the tibia or femur), and injuries to the lateral aspect of the lower limb [1]. Low arched feet in contrast appear to be related to more knee injuries, soft tissue injuries, and injuries to the medial aspect of the lower limb [1]. A recent systematic review aimed to identify this relationship and showed a slightly increased pooled odds ratio (OR = 1.23; 95% CI: 1.11, 1.37) for lower extremity injuries, when either high and low arch feet were present [4]. Some lower limb alignment characteristics have already been identified as being associated with running-related injuries [4,7].
Altered biomechanics are also assumed to provide the link between medial longitudinal arch alignment and increased injury risk [1], and foot arch characteristics have been shown to influence kinematics and kinetics of running [[8], [9], [10]]. The flexibility of different medial longitudinal arch types has been suggested to contribute to differences in running biomechanics [11], i.e. influence the shock attenuation and plantar pressure distribution during running [1,12].
The relationship between foot posture and lower limb biomechanics in walking has already been investigated using a systematic approach by Buldt et al. [13]. A low level of evidence was found for a relationship between low foot arches and increased frontal plane motion of the rearfoot [13]. In contrast, the relationship between foot posture and running biomechanics has not been investigated using a systematic review approach. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the relationship between different foot postures and running biomechanics.
Section snippets
Methods
This study was conducted and reported according to the PRISMA guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analysis [14] and as suggested by Harris et al. [15]. Prior to the start of the study, the review protocol was registered at the University of York, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination PROSPERO database: Registration number CRD42017069530 (http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/).
A systematic literature search was conducted in July 2017 and repeated in February 2018. Inclusion and
Search results
The initial search resulted in 4088 studies, of which 787 duplicates were excluded. Additionally, eight studies were identified through other sources (forward and backward search). A total of 42 studies were assessed for eligibility, of which 17 needed to be excluded for various reasons (no investigation of running condition, no classification of foot type, no full-text found, no comparison group). Finally 25 studies were included in the qualitative analysis and seven studies in the
Discussion
The aim of this study was to systematically synthesize the relationship between medial longitudinal arch characteristics and running biomechanics. Overall, some evidence was found for a relationship between the medial longitudinal arch and rearfoot kinematics, leg stiffness, mid- and forefoot kinematics, tibial rotation, tibial acceleration/shock, plantar pressure distribution (peak pressures, center of pressure course) and ankle kinetics (net work, propulsive work, dynamic joint stiffness
Conclusion
There is evidence for a relationship between medial longitudinal arch characteristics and running biomechanics, especially for subtalar joint kinematics, leg stiffness, ankle kinetics and tibial shock. Even though this relationship has been discussed as an underlying mechanism for running-related injuries, it is difficult to draw conclusive practical or clinical guidance from the current literature. Future research would benefit from higher internal validity and a consensus on medial
Conflict of interest statement
There are no conflicts of interest among any of the authors of this article.
Acknowledgements
This project (Barefoot LIFE) was funded by the Ministry for Science and Research in Hamburg, Germany (grant number LFF-FV13). The research visit to the Oxford Gait Laboratory, Oxford University Hospitals, of the first author (KH) was funded by the European Society of Movement Analysis for Adults and Children (ESMAC). All authors were fully involved in the study and preparation of the manuscript. The material within this manuscript has not been and will not be submitted for publication elsewhere.
References (67)
High- compared to low-arched athletes exhibit smaller knee abduction moments in walking and running
Hum. Mov. Sci.
(2016)The effect of pes cavus on foot pain and plantar pressure
Clin. Biomech. (Bristol, Avon)
(2005)The relationship between foot posture and lower limb kinematics during walking: a systematic review
Gait Posture
(2013)Kinematic gait characteristics associated with patellofemoral pain syndrome: a systematic review
Gait Posture
(2009)- et al.
Effects of running-induced fatigue on plantar pressure distribution in novice runners with different foot types
Gait Posture
(2016) The trajectory of the centre of pressure during barefoot running as a potential measure for foot function
Gait Posture
(2008)- et al.
Rearfoot eversion has indirect effects on plantar fascia tension by changing the amount of arch collapse
Foot (Edinb.)
(2010) Frontal plane multi-segment foot kinematics in high- and low-arched females during dynamic loading tasks
Hum. Mov. Sci.
(2011)Ankle work and dynamic joint stiffness in high- compared to low-arched athletes during a barefoot running task
Hum. Mov. Sci.
(2014)Arch index and running biomechanics in children aged 10-14 years
Gait Posture
(2018)
The effect of foot type on in-shoe plantar pressure during walking and running
Gait Posture
Correlation between foot posture and running kinematics: a pilot study [Relación entre la postura del pie y la cinemática de la carrera: estudio piloto]
Apunts Med. Esport
Effects of arch height of the foot on angular motion of the lower extremities in running
J. Biomech.
High-arched runners exhibit increased leg stiffness compared to low-arched runners
Gait Posture
Effect of footwear on high and low arched runners’ mechanics during a prolonged run
Gait Posture
Effects of footwear on treadmill running biomechanics in preadolescent children
Gait Posture
Loading rate increases during barefoot running in habitually shod runners: individual responses to an unfamiliar condition
Gait Posture
The relationship between foot posture and plantar pressure during walking in adults: a systematic review
Gait Posture
Dynamic plantar pressure parameters associated with static arch height index during gait
Clin. Biomech. (Bristol, Avon)
Arch structure and injury patterns in runners
Clin. Biomech. (Bristol, Avon)
The effect of foot structure and range of motion on musculoskeletal overuse injuries
Am. J. Sports Med.
Lower limb alignment characteristics are not associated with running injuries in runners: prospective cohort study
Eur. J. Sport Sci.
Association between foot type and lower extremity injuries: systematic literature review with meta-analysis
J. Orthop. Sports Phys. Ther.
Combined effect of foot arch structure and an orthotic device on stress fractures
Foot Ankle
The biomechanics of running. Implications for the prevention of foot injuries
Sports Med.
The association between runners’ lower limb alignment with running-related injuries: a systematic review
Br. J. Sports Med.
Lower extremity kinematic and kinetic differences in runners with high and low arches
J. Appl. Biomech.
Association of navicular drop and selected lower-limb biomechanical measures during the stance phase of running
J. Appl. Biomech.
Association between foot type and tibial stress injuries: a systematic review
Br. J. Sports Med.
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement
PLoS Med.
How to write a systematic review
Am. J. Sports Med.
The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions
J. Epidemiol. Commun. Health
The biomechanical differences between barefoot and shod distance running: a systematic review and preliminary meta-analysis
Sports Med.
Cited by (35)
4D-foot analysis on effect of arch support on ankle, subtalar, and talonavicular joint kinematics
2023, Journal of Orthopaedic ScienceFoot
2023, The Youth Athlete: A Practitioner's Guide to Providing Comprehensive Sports Medicine CareFoot Type Biomechanics
2022, Foot and Ankle BiomechanicsNon-radiographic validity and reliability measures for assessing foot types: A systematic review
2021, Foot and Ankle SurgeryCitation Excerpt :The diversity of the existing measures is a compromising factor for these types of studies, as it favors conflicting results for the comparison between different evaluations [75]. This was highlighted as a limiting factor in systematic review studies on the relationship of foot type with other factors [22,25,33] and other studies, such as that by Holowka et al. [76], who attempted to verify the relationship between the user and type of footwear with the type of foot. This restricts data collection and conclusions [22], as also found in the present review.
Shank and rearfoot coordination and its variability during running in flatfoot
2021, Journal of Biomechanics