No announcement yet.

Re: Foot Neutral

This topic is closed.
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Foot Neutral

    Dear Biomch-L subscribers,

    Richard Smith wrote:
    >At the Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Sydney we are conducting
    >studies on the mechanics of the foot. One of the major problems in comparing
    >intra and inter-subject trials is the lack of a definition of neutral alignment
    >of the rearfoot particularly in relation to inversion and eversion. Has anybody
    >had experience with this and would like to share their findings?
    >At the present time we are using the midline of the posterior aspect of the
    >calcaneus and lower one third of the shank to define inv/eversion neutral and
    >foot flat and vertical alignment of the malleolus and lateral epicondyle of the
    >knee for plantar/dorsiflexion and midline of calcaneus to second mtp for ab/

    I have used the following procedure: the subject is asked to
    stand in the anatomical position, with equal weight on both feet.
    The lateral malleolus and head of the fibula are vertically
    aligned. The A-P axis of the foot (defined as the line through
    center of the calcaneus and center of the second toe) is aligned
    with the A-P axis of the trunk. The resulting orientation of the
    ankle joint complex is defined to be the 'neutral', for each of
    the three 3-D joint angles. It seems to be quite reproducible,
    although I have never quantified that.

    The main difference between this procedure and the one mentioned
    by Richard is that my neutral position for in-eversion is not
    defined by anatomical landmarks. Instead it is defined as the
    orientation during a standardized weightbearing situation. I
    find this more convenient, and it is good enough for my purpose.

    -- Ton van den Bogert
    Human Performance Laboratory
    University of Calgary, Canada