Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Foot and Ankle Research 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Methodology

A minimal markerset for three-dimensional foot function assessment: measuring navicular drop and drift under dynamic conditions

Authors: Patric Eichelberger, Angela Blasimann, Nicole Lutz, Fabian Krause, Heiner Baur

Published in: Journal of Foot and Ankle Research | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The validity of predicting foot pronation occurring mainly at the midfoot by surrogate measures from the rearfoot, like eversion excursion, is limited. The dynamic navicular mobility in terms of vertical navicular drop (dNDrop) and medial navicular drift (dNDrift) may be regarded as meaningful clinical indicators to represent overall foot function. This study aimed to develop a minimal approach to measure the two parameters and to examine their intra- and interday reliability during walking.

Methods

The minimal markerset uses markers at the lateral and medial caput of the 1st and 5th metatarsals, respectively, at the dorsal calcaneus and at the tuberosity of the navicular bone. Dynamic navicular drop and drift were assessed with three-dimensional motion capture in 21 healthy individuals using a single-examiner test-retest study design.

Results

Intra- and interday repeatability were 1.1 mm (ICC21 0.97) and 2.3 mm (ICC21 0.87) for dynamic navicular drop and 1.5 mm (ICC21 0.96) and 5.3 mm (ICC21 0.46) for dynamic navicular drift. The contribution of instrumental errors was estimated to 0.25 mm for dynamic navicular drop and 0.86 mm for dynamic navicular drift.

Conclusions

Interday reliability was generally worse than intraday reliability primary due to day-to-day variations in movement patterns and the contribution of instrumental errors was below 23% for dynamic navicular drop but reached 57% for dynamic navicular drift. The minimal markerset allows to simply transfer the known concepts of navicular drop and drift from quasi-static clinical test conditions to functional tasks, which is recommended to more closely relate assessments to the functional behavior of the foot.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Mootanah R, Song J, Lenhoff MW, Hafer JF, Backus SI, Gagnon D, Deland RJT, Hillstrom HJ. Foot type biomechanics part 2: Are structure and anthropometrics related to function?Gait Posture. 2013; 37:452–6.CrossRefPubMed Mootanah R, Song J, Lenhoff MW, Hafer JF, Backus SI, Gagnon D, Deland RJT, Hillstrom HJ. Foot type biomechanics part 2: Are structure and anthropometrics related to function?Gait Posture. 2013; 37:452–6.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Menz HB. Alternative techniques for the clinical assessment of foot pronation. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 1998; 88(3):119–29.CrossRefPubMed Menz HB. Alternative techniques for the clinical assessment of foot pronation. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 1998; 88(3):119–29.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Razeghi M, Batt ME. Foot type classification: a critical review of current methods. Gait Posture. 2002; 15(3):282–91.CrossRefPubMed Razeghi M, Batt ME. Foot type classification: a critical review of current methods. Gait Posture. 2002; 15(3):282–91.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Brody DM. Techniques in the evaluation and treatment of the injured runner. Orthop Clin North Am. 1982; 13(3):541–58.PubMed Brody DM. Techniques in the evaluation and treatment of the injured runner. Orthop Clin North Am. 1982; 13(3):541–58.PubMed
14.
go back to reference Deng J, Joseph R, Wong CK. Reliability and validity of the sit-to-stand navicular drop test: Do static measures of navicular height relate to the dynamic navicular motion during gait?J Stud Phys Ther Res. 2010; 2(1):21–8. Deng J, Joseph R, Wong CK. Reliability and validity of the sit-to-stand navicular drop test: Do static measures of navicular height relate to the dynamic navicular motion during gait?J Stud Phys Ther Res. 2010; 2(1):21–8.
16.
go back to reference Rathleff MS, Nielsen RG, Kersting UG. Navicula drop test ad modum brody: does it show how the foot moves under dynamic conditions?J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2012; 102(1):34–8.CrossRefPubMed Rathleff MS, Nielsen RG, Kersting UG. Navicula drop test ad modum brody: does it show how the foot moves under dynamic conditions?J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2012; 102(1):34–8.CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Cornwall MW, McPoil TG. Relative movement of the navicular bone during normal walking. Foot Ankle Int. 1999; 20:507–12.CrossRefPubMed Cornwall MW, McPoil TG. Relative movement of the navicular bone during normal walking. Foot Ankle Int. 1999; 20:507–12.CrossRefPubMed
28.
go back to reference Weir JP. Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the sem. J Strength Cond Res. 2005; 19(1):231–40.PubMed Weir JP. Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the sem. J Strength Cond Res. 2005; 19(1):231–40.PubMed
31.
go back to reference Schwartz MH, Trost JP, Wervey RA. Measurement and management of errors in quantitative gait data. Gait Posture. 2004; 20(2):196–203.CrossRefPubMed Schwartz MH, Trost JP, Wervey RA. Measurement and management of errors in quantitative gait data. Gait Posture. 2004; 20(2):196–203.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
A minimal markerset for three-dimensional foot function assessment: measuring navicular drop and drift under dynamic conditions
Authors
Patric Eichelberger
Angela Blasimann
Nicole Lutz
Fabian Krause
Heiner Baur
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Journal of Foot and Ankle Research / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1757-1146
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13047-018-0257-2

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Journal of Foot and Ankle Research 1/2018 Go to the issue