The effect of isokinetic hip muscle strength on normal medial longitudinal arch feet and pes planus.

Pes planus is a common foot and ankle physiologic deformity. The normal medial longitudinal arch is depressed or flattened due to a lack of strength in associated muscles, ligaments, and tendons. This study aimed to investigate how isokinetic hip muscular strength affected normal medial longitudinal arch feet and pea planus. Forty adult subjects participated in this study: 20 with pea planus and 20 with normal medial longitudinal arched feet. Both groups were similar in age (p=.074), weight (p=.324), height (p=.211), and BMI (p=.541). The navicular drop test determined the differences in navicular height. An isokinetic dynamometer was used to determine hip muscular strength (peak torque and total work) during hip flexion, extension, abduction, and adduction at speeds of 90°/s and 180°/s. A Kruskal-Wallis test was computed to determine the comparison between the normal medial longitudinal arch and pea planus. Subjects with normal medial longitudinal arch had more muscle strength than pes planus. Hip muscle strength did not show any significant difference between both groups. The abductor and adductor group muscles' total work were higher in subjects with pes planus. This study showed that normal medial longitudinal arched foot subjects have higher muscle strength than pes planus. However, the hip abductors were significantly lower in pes planus after measuring the total work, suggesting that individuals with pes planus are easily fatigued, possibly due to the overuse of the muscles that compensate for any changes in lower limb alignment.

Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Clinimetric Testing of Functional Rating Index (FRI) Outcome Measure into the Arabic Language.

Background: The Functional Rating Index (FRI) is a self-report scale widely used to determine the level of disability in low back pain (LBP) populations. Objectives: This study was aimed at conducting the cross-cultural adaptation of the FRI-Arabic version (FRI-Ar) and testing the clinometric properties of FRI-Ar. Methods: The cross-cultural adaptation process was used to develop the FRI-Ar. This study included acute and subacute LBP patients. Each patient was asked to complete the questionnaires at three time points: baseline, 24-hour follow-up, and two-week follow-up. The questionnaires used were FRI-Ar, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), Global Perceived Effect Scale (GPE), and Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS). Statistical analysis was carried out to measure the instrument's reliability, validity, and responsiveness. Results: The FRI was cross-culturally adapted to the Arabic language, and the adapted version was validated. Two hundred patients completed the questionnaires at the baseline; however, 120 patients completed the questionnaires at 24-hour and two-week follow-up. Cronbach's alpha, interclass correlation coefficient (ICC2,1), standard error of measurement (SEM), and minimal detectable change (MDC95%) for the FRI-Ar were observed as 0.85, 0.85, 1.17 (2.9%), and 3.24, respectively. The FRI-Ar showed a moderate positive correlation only with the RMDQ, ODI, and NPRS (p < 0.05). Also, it showed the responsiveness with a small effect size (ES = 0.29) and standardized response mean (SRM = 0.44). Conclusion: The FRI-Ar was developed, and it showed good reliability and validity. However, it revealed the responsiveness with the small change. It can evaluate both pain and functional limitations in acute and subacute LBP patients. Before using it in the Arabic population with acute and subacute LBP, it is recommended to conduct further research to test internal and external responsiveness using an external criterion with a more extended follow-up period and suitable interventions.

Determining the knee joint laxity between the pronated foot and normal arched foot in adult participants.

AIM OF THE STUDY: Foot pronation is often associated with increased internal rotation of the lower limb, predisposing the knee joint to greater stress. However, the impact of the pronated foot on knee joint laxity has not been well understood. The study aims to find out the effect of the pronated foot on knee joint laxity. METHODS: Forty adult participants were recruited for the study: 20 with asymptomatic pronated foot and 20 control subjects with the normal arched foot. Foot assessments were performed by navicular drop test and rearfoot angle measurements. Knee joint laxity was measured by a KT 1000 arthrometer of the dominant leg. An independent t-test was performed to detect the differences between both groups. RESULTS: Both groups were similar in age, BMI and physical activity level. The findings showed no significant differences between the pronated foot and control group in the knee joint laxity (P = 0.645). CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences in anterior knee displacement between the pronated foot and normal arch foot. The study showed that pronated foot might not be responsible for ACL injuries during the age of twenties and cofounding factors. Further research is needed to investigate older subjects with the pronated foot.

Comparison of 3D Hip Joint Kinematics in People with Asymptomatic Pronation of the Foot and Non-Pronation Controls.

BACKGROUND: The impact of asymptomatic pronation on proximal joints during motion has not been well understood, and research on it remains limited. Therefore, the current study determines the effect of asymptomatic pronation of the foot on hip joint kinematics during gait. METHODS: Forty participants were recruited for the study (20 with asymptomatic pronated feet and 20 with non-pronated feet). Foot assessment was conducted by navicular drop and rear-foot angle tests. Hip joint kinematics were measured via MVN Xsens system 3D-motion capture from sagittal, frontal and transverse planes during gait. An independent t-test was used to identify differences in kinematic variables. RESULTS: Both groups were similar in characteristics, and there were no significant differences between the groups in age (P = 0.674) and BMI (P = 0.459). However, there was a significant difference in arch height (P = 0.001) and rear-foot angle (P = 0.001). Our findings showed there were insignificant differences between the asymptomatic pronated foot and non-pronated foot control groups in hip joint kinematics of sagittal (P = 0.618), frontal (P = 0.276), and transverse (P = 0.337) planes during a full gait cycle. CONCLUSION: Patients with asymptomatic pronation of the foot and non-pronation of the foot showed similar movement patterns of hip kinematics in all three planes. The findings of the present study highlight the need for clinicians to consider foot alignment when examining patients with asymptomatic pronation of the foot and non-pronation of the foot.