Immediate Effect of Orthopedic Insoles, Shoes, and Taping on Selected Ground Reaction Force Variables, Impact, and Loading Rate During Walking in Athletes with Flexible Flatfoot

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Department of Sport Biomechanics, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.

2 Department of Sport Biomechanics and Injuries, Faculty of Physical Education and Sports Science, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran

3 Department of Sport Biomechanics and Rehabilitation, Kinesiology Research Center, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Purpose:
Various methods such as exercises, orthotic insoles, and shoes have been recommended to manage flexible flatfoot deformity, however, there are still challenges in determining their superiority. The aim of the present study was to investigate the immediate effects of orthopedic insoles, shoes, and taping on the kinetic variables of athletes with flexible flatfoot during walking.
Methods:
In this semi-experimental study, 15 male athletes aged 18 to 25 years with flexible flatfoot participated. The participants were asked to walk a 10-meter path under different conditions: shoes with insoles, barefoot, shoes with taping, taping, and shoes alone. Ground reaction force data were collected using a force plate. Ground reaction force variables in vertical, anterior-posterior, and medial-lateral directions, as well as the ground reaction force vector, were extracted as force, time, impact, loading rate, and heel-off rate variables. The analysis of variance with repeated measures or the Friedman test was used to compare the research variables at a significance level of p ≤ 0.05 in SPSS version 24.
Results:
The results showed that shoe conditions combined with insoles and taping increased the first vertical peak force and reduced the trough (p<0.05). Barefoot and taping had higher values at the second peak. In the anterior-posterior direction, shoes with insoles demonstrated greater braking force compared to barefoot and taping, but only taping with shoes showed a significant difference in propulsive force (p<0.05). Additionally, the time to reach maximum propulsive force and the peaks of medial-lateral forces differed significantly between conditions (p<0.05). Barefoot and taping had significant differences in vertical and anterior-posterior impact forces, while the shoe condition showed a significant difference in the medial-lateral direction (p<0.05). The loading rate and heel-off rate also showed significant differences (p<0.05).
Conclusion:
The present study showed that shoes with characteristics similar to those in the current study perform better in controlling ground reaction forces, and their application is recommended as suitable footwear for physical activities and potentially sports. Although orthopedic insoles or taping were effective in some aspects, overall, shoes appeared to be more beneficial. The results of the study indicate that selecting the appropriate footwear can improve muscle performance and reduce potential injuries in the lower extremities. It is recommended that future studies focus on the impact of footwear choice on muscle performance. However, it should be noted that this study only examined the effect of shoes on walking, and further research is necessary to generalize these results to sports movements, with a focus on differences between these two conditions.

Keywords

References

  1. Atik, A. and S. Ozyurek, Flexible flatfoot. North Clin Istanb 2014; 1(1): 57-64.
  2. Deland JT, de Asla RJ, Sung IH, Ernberg LA, Potte HG. Posterior tibial tendon insufficiency: which ligaments are involved? Foot Ankle Int 2005; 26(6): 427-435.
  3. Cheng KW, Peng Y, Lin-Wei Chen T, Zhang G, et al. A three-dimensional printed foot orthosis for flexible flatfoot: an exploratory biomechanical study on arch support reinforcement and undercut. Materials 2021; 14(18): 5297.
  4. Saraswat P, MacWilliams BA, Davis RB,  D'Astous JL. Kinematics and kinetics of normal and planovalgus feet during walking. Gait Posture 2014; 39(1): 339-345.
  5. Kirby KA. Longitudinal arch load-sharing system of the foot. Rev Esp Podolo, 2017; 28(1): 37-45.
  6. Huang YC, Wang LY ,  Wang HCh, Chang KL , Leong CP. The relationship between the flexib le flatfoot and plantar fasciitis: ultrasonographic evaluation. Chang Gung med j 2004; 27(6): 443-448.
  7. Buldt A.K.,  Forghany S,  Landorf KB, Levinger P, et al. Foot posture is associated with plantar pressure during gait: A comparison of normal, planus and cavus feet. Gait Posture 2018; 62: 235-240.
  8. Paton JS. The relationship between navicular drop and first metatarsophalangeal joint motion. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc, 2006; 96(4): 313-317.
  9. Kim MK, Lee YS. Kinematic analysis of the lower extremities of subjects with flat feet at different gait speeds. J Phys Ther Sci, 2013; 25(5): 531-533.
  10. Levinger P, Murley GS, Barton ChJ, Cotchett MP, et al. A comparison of foot kinematics in people with normal-and flat-arched feet using the Oxford Foot Model. Gait Posture 2010; 32(4): 519-523.
  11. Williams DS, Davis IS, Hamill J, Buchanan TS. Lower extremity kinematic and kinetic differences in runners with high and low arches. Journal of applied biomechanics, 2001; 17(2): 153-163.
  12. Pauk J, Ezerskiy V. The effect of foot orthotics on arch height: prediction of arch height correction in flat-foot children. Biocybernetics and Biomedical Engineering, 2011; 31(1): 51-62.
  13. Pauk, J, Griškevičius J. Ground reaction force and support moment in typical and flat-feet children. Mechanics, 2011; 17(1): 93-96.
  14. Prachgosin T,  Chong DYR, Leelasamran W, Smithmaitrie P, Chatpun S. Medial longitudinal arch biomechanics evaluation during gait in subjects with flexible flatfoot. Acta of bioengineering and biomechanics, 2015; 17(4): 121-130.
  15. Bertani A, Cappello A, Benedetti MG, Simoncini L, Catani F. Flat foot functional evaluation using pattern recognition of ground reaction data. Clin Biomech 1999; 14(7): 484-493.
  16. Horwood AM, Chockalingam N. Defining excessive, over, or hyper-pronation: A quandary. Foot 2017; 31: 49-55.
  17. Lafortune MA,  Cavanagh PR,  Sommer 3rd HJ, Kalenak A. Foot inversion-eversion and knee kinematics during walking. J Orthop Res, 1994; 12(3): 412-420.
  18. Buldt, AK, Murley GS, Butterworth P, Levinger P, et al., The relationship between foot posture and lower limb kinematics during walking: A systematic review. Gait Posture, 2013; 38(3): 363-372.
  19. Hamill J, Bates BT, Knutzen KM, Kirkpatrick GM. Relationship between selected static a dynamic lower extremity measures. Clinical Biomechanics, 1989; 4(4): 217-225.
  20. Kaufman KR, Brodine SK,  Shaffer RA, Johnson CW, Cullison TR. The effect of foot structure and range of motion on musculoskeletal overuse injuries. Am J Sports Med, 1999; 27(5): 585-593.
  21. Shibuya N, Jupiter DC,  Ciliberti LJ, VanBuren V,  Fontaine JL. Characteristics of Adult Flatfoot in the United States. The J Foot Ankle Surg, 2010; 49(4): 363-368.
  22. Jahani MR, Jalalvand A, Soltani N, Kaki K. Comparison of ground reaction forces and the amount of load introduced during crossover landing in people with flat foot and healthy individuals. JHPM 2020; 9 (4) :33-44
  23. Murley GS., Landorf KB, Menz HB,  Bird AR. Effect of foot posture, foot orthoses and footwear on lower limb muscle activity during walking and running: a systematic review. Gait Posture, 2009; 29(2): 172-187.
  24. Payehdar S, Saeedi H, Ahmadi A, Kamali M, et al., Comparing the immediate effects of UCBL and modified foot orthoses on postural sway in people with flexible flatfoot. Prosthet Orthot Int, 2016; 40(1): 117-122.
  25. Twomey, D, McIntosh AS,  Simon J,  Lowe K, Wolf SI. Kinematic differences between normal and low arched feet in children using the Heidelberg foot measurement method. Gait & Posture 2010; 32(1): 1-5.
  26. Jafarnezhadgero A, Majlesi M. Madadi-Shad M. The effects of low arched feet on lower limb joints moment asymmetry during gait in children: A cross sectional study. Foot, 2018; 34: 63-68.
  27. Johanson MA, Donatelli R, Wooden MJ, Andrew PD, Cummings GS. Effects of three different posting methods on controlling abnormal subtalar pronation. Phys Ther 1994; 74(2): 149-158.
  28. Telfer S, Abbott M, Steultjens MPM, Woodburn J., Dose–response effects of customised foot orthoses on lower limb kinematics and kinetics in pronated foot type. J Biomech 2013; 46(9): 1489-1495.
  29. Hurd, WJ, Kavros SJ, Kaufman KR. Comparative biomechanical effectiveness of over-the-counter devices for individuals with a flexible flatfoot secondary to forefoot varus. Clin J Sport Med 2010; 20(6): 428-435.
  30. Zifchock RA, Davis I. A comparison of semi-custom and custom foot orthotic devices in high- and low-arched individuals during walking. Clin Biomech 2008; 23(10): 1287-1293.
  31. Bishop C, Arnold JB, May T. Effects of Taping and Orthoses on Foot Biomechanics in Adults with Flat-Arched Feet. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 2016; 48(4): 689-696.
  32. Constantinou M, Brown M. Therapeutic taping for musculoskeletal Conditions-E-Book. 2010: Elsevier Health Sciences.
  33. Larson TJ, Schoenherr J, Farnsworth JL, Navicular height following medial longitudinal arch taping techniques and a 20-Minute exercise protocol. Athletic Training & Sports Health Care 2019; 11(6): 280-286.
  34. Newell, T., J. Simon, and C.L. Docherty, Arch-taping techniques for altering navicular height and plantar pressures during activity. Journal of athletic training 2015. 50(8): 825-832.
  35. Holmes CF, Wilcox D, Fletcher JP. Effect of a modified, low-dye medial longitudinal arch taping procedure on the subtalar joint neutral position before and after light exercise. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2002; 32(5): 194-201.
  36. Dye RW. A Strapping: The Journal of the National Association of Chiropodists-Podiatrists and Pedic Items, November 1939. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 2007; 97(4): 282-284.
  37. Franettovich M, Chapman A, Vicenzino B. Tape that increases medial longitudinal arch height also reduces leg muscle activity: a preliminary study. Med Sci Sports & Exerc 2008; 40(4): 593-600.
  38. Del Rossi, G, Fiolkowski P, Horodyski MB, Bishop M, et al. For how long do temporary techniques maintain the height of the medial longitudinal arch? Physical Therapy in Sport 2004; 5(2): 84-89.
  39. Tang M, Wang L, You Y, Li J, Hu X. Effects of taping techniques on arch deformation in adults with pes planus: A meta-analysis. PloS One 2021; 16(7): e0253567.
  40. Vicenzino B, Franettovich M, McPoil T, Russell T, Skardoon G. Initial effects of anti-pronation tape on the medial longitudinal arch during walking and running. Br J Sports Med 2005; 39(12): 939-943.
  41. Ke Jingyue MS, Hongming D, Jianping L, Honghao Zh, et al. Changes in plantar pressure of subjects with different foot positions during walking and jogging after Kinesio taping. Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research 2024; 28(18): 2800-2807. 10.12307/2024.051
  42. Franettovich, MM, Murley GS, David BS, Bird AR. A comparison of augmented low-Dye taping and ankle bracing on lower limb muscle activity during walking in adults with flat-arched foot posture. J sci med sport 2012; 15(1): 8-13.
  43. Van Lunen B, Cortes N, Andrus T, Walker M, et al. Immediate effects of a heel-pain orthosis and an augmented low-dye taping on plantar pressures and pain in subjects with plantar fasciitis. Clin J Sport Med 2011; 21(6): 474-479.
  44. Banwell HA, Thewlis D, Mackintosh S. Adults with flexible pes planus and the approach to the prescription of customised foot orthoses in clinical practice: A clinical records audit. Foot 2015; 25(2): 101-109.
  45. Sung, PS. The ground reaction force thresholds for detecting postural stability in participants with and without flat foot. J Biomech 2016; 49(1): 60-65.
  46. Utian, W.H., et al., Estrogen and progestogen use in postmenopausal women: July 2008 position statement of The North American Menopause Society. Menopause 2008; 15(4 Pt 1): 584-602.
  47. Redmond AC, Crane YZ, Menz HB. Normative values for the foot posture index. J Foot Ankle res 2008; 1(1): 1-9.
  48. Morrison SC, Ferrari J. Inter-rater reliability of the Foot Posture Index (FPI-6) in the assessment of the paediatric foot. J foot ankle res 2009; 2: 1-5.
  49. Evans A.M, Copper AW, Scharfbillig RW, Scutter SD, Williams MT. Reliability of the foot posture index and traditional measures of foot position. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc, 2003. 93(3):203-213.
  50. Engebretsen L, Bahr R. Why is injury prevention in sports important. Sports Injury Prevention 2009; 1: 1-6.
  51. Winter DA. Biomechanics and motor control of human movement. 2009: John Wiley & Sons.
  52. Robertson, DGE, Caldwell GE, Hamill J, Kamen G, et al. Research methods in biomechanics. Second ed. 2013: Human Kinetics.
  53. Kirtley C. Clinical gait analysis: theory and practice. 2006: Elsevier.
  54. Jafarnezhadgero AA, Farahpour N, Damavandi M, The immediate effects of arch support insole on ground reaction forces during walking. J Res Rehabilit Sci 2015; 11(3): 172-181.
  55. Hollman JH, Brey RH, Bang TJ, Kaufman KR. Does walking in a virtual environment induce unstable gait?: An examination of vertical ground reaction forces. Gait Posture 2007; 26(2): 289-294.
  56. Hasan CZC, Jailani R, Tahir NM, Desa HM. Vertical ground reaction force gait patterns during walking in children with autism spectrum disorders. International Journal of Engineering 2018; 31(5): 705-711.
  57. Kleiner, A.F.R., et al., Ground reaction forces analyses during the gait of healthy individuals with and without the use of a calcaneus insole. Acta Fisiátrica, 2012. 19(1):1-5.
  58. Robbins SE, Hanna AM. Running-related injury prevention through barefoot adaptations. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1987; 19(2): 148-156.
  59. Robbins S, Waked E. Balance and vertical impact in sports: role of shoe sole materials. Arch phys med rehabil, 1997; 78(5): 463-467.
  60. Shorten M, Mientjes M. The effects of shoe cushioning on impact force during running. in Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Footwear Biomechanics. 2003. Citeseer.
  61. Cavanagh P, Williams K., Clarke T. A comparison of ground reaction forces during walking barefoot and in shoes. Biomechanics VII-b 1981; 3: 151-156.
  62. Birrell SA, Hooper RH, Haslam RA. The effect of military load carriage on ground reaction forces. Gait Posture 2007; 26(4): 611-614.
  63. Chang JS, Kwon YH, Kim ChS, Ahn SH, Park SH. Differences of ground reaction forces and kinematics of lower extremity according to landing height between flat and normal feet. J back musculoskelet rehabil, 2012; 25(1): 21-26.
  64. ghazaleh L, Yasin Hoseini, Faezeh Masoomi, Mohammad Taghi Karimi. Ground reaction force analysis in flexible and rigid flatfoot subjects. J Bodyw Mov Ther 2024; 39: 441-446.
  65. Niu W, Feng T, Jiang Ch, Zhang Ming Zh. Peak Vertical Ground Reaction Force during Two‐Leg Landing: A Systematic Review and Mathematical Modeling. BioMed Res Int 2014; 2014(1): 126860.
  66. Alavi Mehr, SM, Jafarnezhadgero A, Majlesi M. The Immediate Effect of Medical Insole on Loading Rate, Impulse, and Free Moment in Male Children with Flat Foot: A clinical trial. JRUMS 2018; 17(1): 27-38.
  67. Piri E, Barghamadi M, Farzizade R. Comparison of the Effects of Immediate and Long-Term Water and Thera band Exercises on Loading Rate, Impulse, and Free Moment in People with Pronate Foot during Walking: A Clinical Trial. J Gorgan Univ Med Sci, 2022; 24(4): 10-19.
  68. Samaan CD, Rainbow MJ, Davis IS, Reduction in ground reaction force variables with instructed barefoot running. J Sport Health Sci, 2014; 3(2): 143-151.
Journal of Paramedical Sciences & Rehabilitation
Volume 14, Issue 2
August 2025
Pages 33-52

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics