Cargando…
Tibiofemoral contact force differences between flat flexible and stable supportive walking shoes in people with varus-malaligned medial knee osteoarthritis: A randomized cross-over study
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of stable supportive to flat flexible walking shoes on medial tibiofemoral contact force (MTCF) in people with medial knee osteoarthritis and varus malalignment. DESIGN: This was a randomized cross-over study. Twenty-eight participants aged ≥50 years with medial knee...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9162314/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35653355 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269331 |
Sumario: | OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of stable supportive to flat flexible walking shoes on medial tibiofemoral contact force (MTCF) in people with medial knee osteoarthritis and varus malalignment. DESIGN: This was a randomized cross-over study. Twenty-eight participants aged ≥50 years with medial knee osteoarthritis and varus malalignment were recruited from the community. Three-dimensional full-body motion, ground reaction forces and surface electromyograms from twelve lower-limb muscles were acquired during six speed-matched walking trials for flat flexible and stable supportive shoes, tested in random order. An electromyogram-informed neuromusculoskeletal model with subject-specific geometry estimated bodyweight (BW) normalized MTCF. Waveforms were analyzed using statistical parametric mapping with a repeated measures analysis of variance model. Peak MTCF, MTCF impulse and MTCF loading rates (discrete outcomes) were evaluated using a repeated measures multivariate analysis of variance model. RESULTS: Statistical parametric mapping showed lower MTCF in stable supportive compared to flat flexible shoes during 5–18% of stance phase (p = 0.001). For the discrete outcomes, peak MTCF and MTCF impulse were not different between the shoe styles. However, mean differences [95%CI] in loading impulse (-0.02 BW·s [-0.02, 0.01], p<0.001), mean loading rate (-1.42 BW·s(-1) [-2.39, -0.45], p = 0.01) and max loading rate (-3.26 BW·s(-1) [-5.94, -0.59], p = 0.02) indicated lower measure of loading in stable supportive shoes compared to flexible shoes. CONCLUSIONS: Stable supportive shoes reduced MTCF during loading stance and reduced loading impulse/rates compared to flat flexible shoes and therefore may be more suitable in people with medial knee osteoarthritis and varus malalignment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (12619000622101). |
---|