STUDY DESIGN: Clinical measurement. OBJECTIVE: To determine the validity and reliability of measures obtained using a custom-made device for assessing ankle dorsiflexion motion and stiffness. BACKGROUND: Limited dorsiflexion has been implicated in the evolution of foot pain in a number of clinical populations. Assessment of ankle dorsiflexion range of motion (ROM) is, therefore, commonly performed as part of a foot and ankle examination. Conventional goniometric assessment methods have demonstrated limited intertester reliability, while alternative methods of measurements are generally more difficult to use. The Iowa ankle range of motion (IAROM) device was designed in an attempt to develop a simple, clinically relevant, and time- and cost-effective tool to measure ankle dorsiflexion range of motion and stiffness. METHODS: Validity and intertester reliability of dorsiflexion range-of-motion measures using the IAROM device were assessed at 10, 15, 20, and 25 Nm of passively applied dorsiflexion torque, with both the knee extended and flexed approximately 20°. Stiffness (change in torque/change in dorsiflexion angle) values were determined using the angular change obtained between the 15- and 25-Nm torque levels. Convergent validity (n = 12) was assessed through comparison of ankle dorsiflexion angles measured simultaneously with the IAROM device and an optoelectronic motion analysis system. Intertester reliability (n = 17) was assessed by 2 testers who took measurements within the same day. RESULTS: Validity testing demonstrated excellent agreement (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] values ranging from 0.95 to 0.98). Reliability testing demonstrated good to excellent intertester agreement (ICC values ranging from 0.90 to 0.95). The ICCs for ankle joint dorsiflexion stiffness were .71 and .85 for the knee in an extended and flexed position, respectively. CONCLUSION: The IAROM device provides valid and reliable measurement of ankle dorsiflexion ROM. The IAROM device also allows calculation of stiffness by measuring ROM at multiple torque levels, although the reliability of the measurement is not optimal.

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2011;41(4):274-280. doi:10.2519/jospt.2011.3397

KEY WORDS: IAROM, plantar flexors, stiffness, talocrural joint

STUDY DESIGN: Experimental laboratory study supplemented by a case series. OBJECTIVES: (1) To assess the effect of a 4-week intervention with a full-length insert on functional outcomes in patients with midfoot arthritis; (2) to examine the effect of the custom molded three-quarter-length (3Q) and full-length (FL) carbon graphite insert on plantar loading in patients with midfoot arthritis. BACKGROUND: Given the coexistence of pain and lower-arched foot alignment in patients with midfoot arthritis, arch-restoring orthotic devices such as the 3Q insert are frequently recommended. However, patients continue to report foot pain despite using the 3Q insert. The FL insert has been proposed as an alternative, but objective data examining its efficacy are lacking. METHODS: Twenty female patients with midfoot arthritis participated in the study. Functional outcomes were assessed using the Foot Function Index-Revised (FFI-R). Plantar loading during walking was measured in the following conditions: shoe only, shoe with 3Q insert, and shoe with FL insert. Repeated-measures analyses of variance with post hoc analyses were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: FL insert use for 4 weeks resulted in a 12% improvement in total FFI-R score (mean ± SD before, 35.6 ± 10.9; after, 31.1 ± 9.8 [P = .03]). FL insert use resulted in a 20% reduction in medial midfoot average pressure loading (mean ± SD, 64.8 ± 20.4 and 51.0 ± 15.4 kPa, with 3Q and FL insert respectively [P = .015]) and an 8.5% reduction in medial midfoot contact time (mean ± SD, 84.9% ± 6.4% and 76.4% ± 7.1% of stance, with 3Q and FL insert respectively [P<.01]), compared to the 3Q insert. No differences in plantar loading were discerned between the shoe-only and FL conditions. CONCLUSION: Symptomatic improvement in patients with midfoot arthritis treated with a FL insert was accompanied by reduced magnitude and duration of loading under the medial midfoot. These preliminary outcomes suggest that the FL insert may be a viable alternative in the conservative management of patients with midfoot arthritis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapy, level 4.

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2009;39(7):522-531. doi:10.2519/jospt.2009.2900

KEY WORDS: Lisfranc, orthoses, tarsometatarsal