Effects of Ankle-Foot Orthoses on Ankle and Foot Kinematics in Patients With Subtalar Osteoarthritis Yu-Chi Huang, MD, Kimberly Harbst, PhD, Brian Kotajarvi, MS, PT, Diana Hansen, BA, Matthew F. Koff, PhD, Harold B. Kitaoka, MD, Kenton R. Kaufman, PhD Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Volume 87, Issue 8, Pages 1131-1136 (August 2006) DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2006.03.021 Copyright © 2006 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Terms and Conditions
Fig 1 Three different types of custom-made foot orthoses were evaluated in this study (from left to right): a rigid AFO, an HFO-R, and an HFO-A. Reprinted from Huang,15 with permission from the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2006 87, 1131-1136DOI: (10.1016/j.apmr.2006.03.021) Copyright © 2006 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Terms and Conditions
Fig 2 The joint coordination system that was used for measuring the triplanar angular motion of the hindfoot (calcaneus relative to the tibia). Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2006 87, 1131-1136DOI: (10.1016/j.apmr.2006.03.021) Copyright © 2006 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Terms and Conditions
Fig 3 The sagittal, frontal, and transverse planes ROM of the (A) hindfoot and (B) forefoot in subtalar OA patients using 3 types of orthoses when walking on level walkway. NOTE. Values are average ± standard deviation (SD). *Significant difference (P<.05). Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2006 87, 1131-1136DOI: (10.1016/j.apmr.2006.03.021) Copyright © 2006 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Terms and Conditions
Fig 4 The sagittal, frontal, and transverse planes ROM of the (A) hindfoot and (B) forefoot in subtalar OA patients using 3 types of orthoses when walking down the ramp. NOTE. Values are average ± SD. *Significant difference (P<.05). Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2006 87, 1131-1136DOI: (10.1016/j.apmr.2006.03.021) Copyright © 2006 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Terms and Conditions
Fig 5 The sagittal, frontal, and transverse planes ROM of the (A) hindfoot and (B) forefoot in subtalar OA patients using 3 types of orthoses when walking up the ramp. NOTE. Values are average ± SD. *Significant difference (P<.05). Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2006 87, 1131-1136DOI: (10.1016/j.apmr.2006.03.021) Copyright © 2006 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Terms and Conditions
Fig 6 The sagittal, frontal, and transverse planes ROM of the (A) hindfoot and (B) forefoot in subtalar OA patients using 3 types of orthoses when walking on the side slope-high condition. NOTE. Values are average ± SD. *Significant difference (P<.05). Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2006 87, 1131-1136DOI: (10.1016/j.apmr.2006.03.021) Copyright © 2006 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Terms and Conditions
Fig 7 The sagittal, frontal, and transverse planes ROM of the (A) hindfoot and (B) forefoot in ankle OA patients using 3 types of orthoses when walking on the side slope-low condition. NOTE. Values are average ± SD. *Significant difference (P<.05). Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2006 87, 1131-1136DOI: (10.1016/j.apmr.2006.03.021) Copyright © 2006 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Terms and Conditions