A kinematic description of dynamic midfoot break in children using a multi-segment foot model
Highlights
► Children with midfoot break have decreased ankle dorsiflexion. ► Children with midfoot break have increased dynamic midfoot motion. ► A multi-segment foot model can be used to quantify the severity of midfoot break.
Introduction
Midfoot break (MFB) is a severe foot deformity that can cause chronic pain and reduced ankle power, which can make walking difficult. This type of foot deformity occurs most commonly in children with cerebral palsy (CP) [1]. CP is defined as a group of permanent disorders of the development of movement and posture causing activity limitation that are attributed to non-progressive disturbances that occurred in the developing foetal or infant brain [2]. MFB can also affect children with other developmental disorders, such as spina bifida. At the Shriners Gait Lab (SGL) at Sunny Hill Health Centre for Children in Vancouver, BC, Canada, at least 10% of all children diagnosed with CP present to the lab with a MFB. In addition several children with diagnoses other than CP present to the lab with MFB every year.
Classically, as the severity of MFB worsens, surgical management becomes necessary. Prolonged weight-bearing in the face of a MFB may lead to the development of painful calluses over prominent osseous anatomy (e.g. navicular or plantarflexed talus). This may make the wearing of any potential corrective or supportive orthoses difficult or even impossible. The existing surgical treatment modalities aim to establish a plantigrade foot whereby both the hindfoot and forefoot are on the ground together during standing [3]. The long term morbidity following surgical treatment of MFB can be serious, thus early diagnosis and preventative treatments for MFB are critical.
Clinical: MFB is a 3-dimensional foot deformity that can be described in terms of forefoot and hindfoot positioning in the coronal, sagittal, and transverse planes. MFB can be fixed or dynamic (flexible). In a foot with MFB, increased tightness in the gastroc-soleus complex pulls the hindfoot and talus into equinus. These increased muscle forces overpower the tibialis posterior and spring ligament, causing a collapse of the longitudinal arch. This results in a forefoot position that is dorsiflexed, abducted and supinated relative to the hindfoot. In addition, the navicular becomes subluxated dorsally and laterally on the talus [1].
Diagnosing a dynamic MFB is done on clinical exam by stabilizing the sub-talar joint, and observing whether or not dorsiflexion occurs through the midfoot. In a typical foot, there is no dynamic motion at the midfoot; therefore, midfoot motion observed during this exam indicates the presence of midfoot break. Clinical diagnosis of MFB can be confirmed with a radiograph of the standing foot measuring the talo-navicular angle on both the AP and the lateral views [4]. However, radiographs provide no information about the dynamic motion between the hindfoot and forefoot. Confirmation of dynamic MFB relies on both radiographic results and the experience of the physician. The lack of objectivity in this type of clinical assessment forms the basis for this study.
Gait analysis: Three-dimensional gait analysis has been used to assess joint motion for over 20 years [5]. Gait analysis is routinely performed on children with CP and other developmental disorders to provide a dynamic assessment of walking, but there is currently no information in the literature describing MFB in relation to gait parameters. Conventional gait analysis methods model the foot as a single segment based on the assumption that the foot is rigid [5]. In this paper, we refer to this as the conventional foot model, (CFM). However, the assumption of foot rigidity is not always true for individuals with foot deformities. Many multi-segment foot models have been developed and tested in recent years to address this issue [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. Despite the vast number of foot models emerging in the literature, few of these models are practical for routine clinical use, particularly in children.
The two multi-segment foot models considered for this study were developed to address the paediatric population directly. The oxford foot model (OFM) is a validated model that has been used clinically for several years and has been adapted for use in children [11]. The OFM defines the foot segments based on underlying bony anatomy, and thus relies heavily upon accurate marker placement by clinicians for repeatable segment orientation. Repeatability tests in children have shown minimal day-to-day variability in the sagittal plane, but much greater variability in the transverse plane [11].
The Shriners Hospital for Children Greenville Foot Model (SHCG model) was developed to address the problem of day-to-day variability caused by inconsistency in marker placement [12]. The model minimizes the dependence on marker placement by utilizing a “Smart Surface” (either the floor or a wedge) to help define the plantar surface of the foot. Only a few markers require specific anatomical placement, while others are simply tracking markers. The SHCG model was recently modified to provide different options for the plantar surface references (mSHCG model) [8]. The plantar surface of the forefoot and hindfoot can be defined by the Smart Surface (Option 1), using radiographs (Option 2), or using anatomically placed markers (Option 3). The developers of the mSHCG conducted repeatability tests using Option 3 and showed that, similar to the OFM, the mSHCG foot model was more repeatable in the sagittal plane compared to the transverse and coronal planes. Their results also showed that the mSHCG model (Option 3) was equally or more repeatable than the OFM.
Early identification of MFB is critical for intervention and prevention of progression of this condition. There is currently no standard clinical description for MFB, and thus early indications of MFB can be easily overlooked. The purpose of this study was twofold: (1) to compare the use of a single-segment foot model versus a multi-segment foot model to describe foot and ankle kinematics in children with MFB, and (2) to characterize MFB using a multi-segment foot model. Selection of the preferred multi-segment foot model involved comparing the repeatability of the OFM to the mSHCG model to determine the most appropriate multi-segment model for MFB assessment.
This study focused on sagittal plane kinematics as a first step in describing MFB. By characterizing the kinematic profiles of midfoot break using gait analysis, we aim to provide clinicians with an objective tool for identifying the onset of MFB with the goal of prevention and standardization of treatment recommendations.
Section snippets
Participants
This study involved two groups of participants:
- (1)
children with spastic diplegia, with unilateral or bilateral midfoot break (MFB group);
- (2)
children with no evidence of MFB or any gait abnormalities (Control group).
Participants in the MFB group were recruited through routine gait analysis referrals to Sunny Hill. These patients were identified as having MFB based on clinical assessment by the referring orthopaedic surgeon. This diagnosis was confirmed by a comprehensive physiotherapy exam at the gait
Comparing the use of a single-segment foot model (CFM) versus multi-segment foot model (mSHCG) to describe MFB: motion with respect to proximal segment (SCS)
Results from the comparison of the CFM and mSHCG models showed a marked difference in ankle motion calculated using the two different methods. The kinematic data for the CFM showed a pattern of absent first rocker, decreased dorsiflexion (DF) in stance, and increased plantarflexion (PF) in swing for the MFB group compared to the Control group (Table 1, Fig. 2). Although the peak ankle DF was significantly different between the groups, the difference between the group averages of peak ankle DF
Selection of the foot models
An important first step in this project was to determine which foot models to use. For the single-segment foot model, we chose the model most commonly used in gait analysis over the past several decades [13]. For the multi-segment foot model, there were many models in the literature, but the OFM and mSHCG models were developed specifically for use in children, so these are the models we tested within our lab. We found improved intra-rater repeatability with the mSHCG model compared to the OFM.
Conclusion
MFB, if left untreated, can cause a great deal of pain and typically results in the need for surgical interventions. The goal in developing an objective assessment tool for the diagnosis of MFB is to treat this condition before major intervention becomes necessary. By using the mSHCG model, it is now possible to quantify the presence and severity of MFB in children in the sagittal plane and monitor the progression over time. This could help ensure individuals receive appropriate intervention
Conflict of interest statement
The authors have no conflict of interest to disclose.
Acknowledgments
This study was funded by a BC Children's Hospital Foundation Telethon Grant and iACT Synergy Grant.
References (14)
- et al.
Kinematic analysis of a multi-segment foot model for research and clinical applications: a repeatability analysis
Journal of Biomechanics
(2001) - et al.
Foot models for clinical gait analysis
Gait and Posture
(2006) - et al.
A multi-segment foot model based on anatomically registered technical coordinate systems: method repeatability in pediatric feet
Gait and Posture
(2012) - et al.
An objective evaluation of a segmented foot model
Gait and Posture
(2009) - et al.
An anatomically based protocol for the description of foot segment kinematics during gait
Clinical Biomechanics (Bristol, Avon)
(1999) - et al.
Repeatability of a model for measuring multi-segment foot kinematics in children
Gait and Posture
(2006) - et al.
A gait analysis data collection and reduction technique
Human Movement Science
(1991)
Cited by (20)
Multi-segment foot kinematics during gait in children with spastic cerebral palsy
2024, Gait and PostureBiomechanical Implications of Congenital Conditions of the Foot/Ankle
2023, Foot and Ankle ClinicsMultisegment Foot Models
2022, Foot and Ankle BiomechanicsMulti-segment foot models and their use in clinical populations
2019, Gait and PostureLong-term gait outcomes following conservative management of idiopathic toe walking
2018, Gait and PostureCitation Excerpt :Ground reaction forces were collected at 1200 Hz simultaneously from three floor-embedded force plates located in the middle of the walkway (Advanced Mechanical Technology Incorporated, Allentown, MA). Participants repeated walking trials until 10 clean force plate strikes were collected for each limb; three consistent strides from three different trials were selected for analysis and averaged [16,19]. Representative trials were determined by visual inspection of all traces.
One- and multi-segment foot models lead to opposite results on ankle joint kinematics during gait: Implications for clinical assessment
2015, Clinical BiomechanicsCitation Excerpt :Repeated measure ANoVA showed an interaction effect between foot model and group factors, with a stronger effect of model for flat feet children. As expected, according to the OFM model all over the stance phase, the flat feet group presented an exaggerated dorsal flexion between forefoot and rearfoot and an adduction of the forefoot, which are representative of the midfoot break, characteristic of this deformation (Mosca, 2010; Maurer et al., 2013; Levinger et al., 2010). Among the five clinically relevant points of interest studied all along the gait cycle about the dorsi/plantar flexion and the adduction/abduction axes, an interaction effect of foot model and group was almost always present.