Forefoot Injuries in Athletes: Integration of the Movement System.

Despite the prevalence of forefoot related problems in athletes, there are few comprehensive summaries on examination and intervention strategies for those with forefoot related symptoms. While many factors may contribute to pathology and injury, the presence of abnormal foot alignment can negatively affect lower extremity biomechanics and be associated with injuries. Physical therapists may use the characteristics associated abnormal pronation or abnormal supination to describe the movement system disorder and serve as a guide for evaluating and managing athletes with forefoot pathologies. Athletes with an abnormal pronation movement system diagnosis typically demonstrate foot hypermobility, have decreased strength of the tibialis posterior muscle, and present with a medially rotated lower extremity position. Athletes with abnormal supination movement system diagnosis typically demonstrate foot hypomobility, decreased strength of the fibularis muscles, and a laterally rotated lower extremity position. Interventions of manual therapy, taping, strengthening exercises, and neuromuscular reeducation can be directed at the identified impairments and abnormal movements. The purpose of this clinical commentary is to integrate a movement system approach in pathoanatomical, evaluation, and intervention considerations for athletes with common forefoot pathologies, including stress fractures, metatarsalgia, neuroma, turf toe, and sesamoiditis. By applying a prioritized, objective problem list and movement system diagnosis, emphasis is shifted from a pathoanatomical diagnosis-based treatment plan to a more impairment and movement focused treatment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 5.

Ankle Stability and Movement Coordination Impairments: Lateral Ankle Ligament Sprains Revision 2021.

This revised clinical practice guideline (CPG) addresses the distinct but related lower extremity impairments of those with a first-time lateral ankle sprain (LAS) and those with chronic ankle instability (CAI). Depending on many factors, impairments may continue following injury. While most individuals experience resolution of symptoms, complaints of instability may continue and are defined as CAI. The aims of the revision were to provide a concise summary of the contemporary evidence since publication of the original guideline and to develop new recommendations or revise previously published recommendations to support evidence-based practice. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2021;51(4):CPG1-CPG80. doi:10.2519/jospt.2021.0302.

The Single Leg Squat Test: A "Top-Down" or "Bottom-Up" Functional Performance Test?

BACKGROUND: Medial knee deviation (MKD) during the single leg squat test (SLST) is a common clinical finding that is often attributed to impairments of proximal muscular structures. Investigations into the relationship between MKD and the foot and ankle complex have provided conflicting results, which may impact clinicians' interpretation of the SLST. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare ankle dorsiflexion range of motion (ROM) and foot posture in subjects that perform the SLST with MKD (fail) versus without MKD (pass). HYPOTHESIS: There will be a difference in ankle dorsiflexion ROM and/or foot posture between healthy individuals that pass and fail the SLST for MKD. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: Sixty-five healthy, active volunteers (sex = 50 female, 15 male; age = 25.2 +/- 5.6 years; height = 1.7 +/- .1 m; weight = 68.5 +/- 13.5 kg) who demonstrated static balance and hip abductor strength sufficient for performance of the SLST participated in the study. Subjects were divided into pass and fail groups based on visual observation of MKD during the SLST. Foot Posture Index (FPI-6) scores and measures of non-weight bearing and weight bearing active ankle dorsiflexion (ROM) were compared. RESULTS: There were 33 individuals in the pass group and 32 in the fail group. The groups were similar on age (p = .899), sex (p = .341), BMI (p = .818), and Tegner Activity Scale score (p = .456). There were no statistically significant differences between the groups on the FPI-6 (pass group mean = 2.5 +/- 3.9; fail group mean = 2.3 +/- 3.5; p = .599), or any of the measures of dorsiflexion range of motion (non-weight bearing dorsiflexion with knee extended: pass group = 6.9o +/- 3.7o, fail group = 7.8o +/- 3.0o; non-weight bearing dorsiflexion with knee flexed: pass group = 13.5o +/- 5.6o, fail group = 13.9o +/- 5.3o; weight bearing dorsiflexion: pass group = 42.7o +/- 6.0o, 42.7o +/- 8.3o, p = .611). CONCLUSIONS: Failure on the SLST is not related to differences in clinical measures of active dorsiflexion ROM or foot posture in young, healthy individuals. These findings suggest that clinicians may continue using the SLST to assess neuromuscular performance of the trunk, hip, and knee without ankle dorsiflexion ROM or foot posture contributing to results. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3.